> I think it's more illogical to define God as being beyond our ability to > comprehend and then insist that we'll only believe in him if we can > understand him.
That would be illogical. I haven't agreed with that premise about God, so I'm not guilty of that conclusion. If there is a character who is described by some people as being "beyond our ability to comprehend", does that mean we have to believe the character really exists? Because maybe our disbelief is only our inability to comprehend all or some of it? If I assert that Thor and Ahura Mazda and Scooby Doo are "beyond our ability to comprehend," do you have to conclude that they are real beings? > Based on your previous acknowledgement of the clarification I provided > concerning how we're not to set reason aside when we try to understand God, > I don't think I need to repeat myself yet again on that point. I acknowledge that you wouldn't put it in the same terms I'm using. I realize you and Brock might even be offended by the terms I'm using. But I shouldn't have to find some synonymous euphemisms that you would prefer. In your post on Apr 30, 9:27 pm, you wrote "...in several posts I've tried to point out that spiritual truths are not ascertained through reason alone..." That is the latest, clearest instance of something you wrote that sounds like you are saying people can't get to the truth without at least temporarily setting aside reason. Maybe this is confusing because I'm thinking in terms of a rationalist (with empiricism as a facet of rationalism). There are people who see reason as the tool that helps us access truth (rationalists), or there are people who feel that other tools can help us access truth (everyone else). I'm like George Bush with this (ugh!), but you're either with us on Team Reason, or you're against us on Team Non-Reason. You either value reason *enough* as the only tool for acquiring knowledge, or you value reason inadequately, thinking that reason never helps or is only one of the tools to help acquire knowledge. So even though you say that reason alone doesn't get you there, I know that you're saying you value reason somewhat, but you're saying some other thing is needed to get you to spiritual truths. So whatever else you're using at that point to get you to spiritual truths, you're setting aside reason and picking up some other tool. I guess I haven't been clear. I don't mean to accuse you of totally rejecting reason or logic. I mean if there's ever some belief that you form based on something other than reason (like what you said about "spiritual truths are not ascertained through reason alone"), then it seems to me like you are setting aside reason and relying on something else. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "A Civil Religious Debate" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/a-civil-religious-debate?hl=en.
