If assuming that god X is the right one is a bad idea (see part 1), then what is a better alternative?
My Original Assumptions (what I would bet my life on):
1. I think I exist
2. I think my senses are trustworthy
3. I think I am capable of using logic and reason
Justification for my assumptions:
1. I think I exist.
I'm not saying that I know 100% that I do exist. What I am saying is that if I didn't assume my own existence, then there would be no reason to live. Eating to prevent hunger, drinking to prevent thirst, pursing happiness for the sake of being happy, and writing/reading this blog post are all activities that assume one's own existence.
2. I think my senses are trustworthy.
This is how I would respond if someone told me that senses are a bad original assumption:
"What? You're telling me my senses aren't trustworthy? I'm sorry I'm not sure what my ears just communicated to me... Could you say that again? Couldn't hear you..."
Again, I am not 100% sure that my senses are reliable.
BUT, the question is not "what do you know to be 100% true", the question is "what are you sure enough of that you would bet your life on it?"
If I were to look for 100% assurance of truthfulness on every issue, I would find myself completely unable to function. It is much better to look for the degree of assurance required on a given topic such that you would bet your life on it; and I bet my life on my senses every day (look out for that truck!).
This line of thinking is of utmost importance when considering the existence of god, and whether or not a certain god is the right one. This is because "betting your life" is exactly what you are doing (for example, if you don't accept Jesus Christ and Christianity turns out to be true, you go to hell).
3. I think I am capable of logic and reason
If anyone tries to use logic OR reason to show me why this fundamental assumption is wrong, i will not listen to you!!! (assuming I can hear you/read your comment [assuming I exist])
Again, I don't think my cognitive abilities are 100% reliable (I would listen to someone who made an argument along those lines), but I would (and do) bet my life on my ability to use logic and reasoning.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
It is upon these three original assumptions that I base all of my other beliefs.
Another reason why these assumptions are better than picking god X? My assumptions are universally applicable to humanity and are useful for making forward progress when attempting to determine whether or not god X exists.
------------------------------------------------------------------
A few questions for thought/comment:
1. Would you bet your life on the existence of Krishna?
2. Would you bet your life on the existence of Allah?
3. Would you bet your life on the existence of god X? (see where I'm going with this?)
4. What are your original assumptions?
First off after stumbling through your blog I definitely enjoy reading it. I realize this is the base assumptions stated so when discussion deepens those who are following will not be confused. That being said they are also good criteria, however which question is trying to be answered? Does "god" exist? or Does a certain "god" exist?
ReplyDeleteIn addition I would add two more criteria: 4) there may be no evidence for the existence of any god. 5)As created beings humans cannot fully understand any "gods'" existence.
Thanks for the comment!
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you enjoy the blog and I hope you keep coming back.
Both of the questions you listed are being pursued.
4) I agree- there may be no evidence for the existence of any god! We shall hopefully find that out too.
5) I agree- we couldn't fully understand a 'god', but we can pursue partial understanding!
1. "I think I exist." Existence is a non specific adjective describing...well...I'm not sure what. Does Julius Caesar still "exist" if I breathe in a few molecules of his last breath? Existence's neutral nature does not provide insight enough to describe people and the human condition. Existence is perhaps better stated as "living." As in, "I think I live." A better description has developed, one with flesh and blood and concerns for tomorrow. Then comes the need for a holistic view. Am I living or slowly dying? Do I pursue to postpone death? Or do I go on the pursuit of new life? And therein lies a degree of uncertainty, an uncertainty that accompanies every human life. Hence, eating and drinking to sate bodily needs are not mere attempts to preserve ones existence. You'll simply exist as an emaciated corpse if you don't drink or eat. These things are to preserve life, or stay death, topics founded in uncertainty.
ReplyDelete2."I think my senses are trustworthy": For the decision at hand, perhaps. But I cannot rely on my senses to understand to a greater certainty what brought about those choices or to see clearly past the choices I make. My senses are but a single line of thought, going this way or that in a six dimensional universe of time and space, plotting intersections of paths I can't begin to comprehend. I can trust my senses for walking across a street at the moment. In two days? Who knows? Human perception is limited, and therefore cannot be trusted. And betting my life on my decisions...is not my decision. My decisions are lesser than the machinery of the world around me. I could decide to enjoy a warm afternoon on the front porch. By no decision of mine, a trash truck driver gets drunk that morning because he hates his job, loses control, and smashes me again my house. I can't bet my life solely on my decisions.
Question 4: Partial understanding of God, or a god, is a fruitless venture. There is what God gave us, namely the Bible, or various sacred texts for other gods. And that is all humans need, no more. Evidence of God's existence, or His nonexistence, is inconsequential to God. He is a preternatural deity unconfined to the parameters of human logic and the laws of our universe. Evidence on our parts is folly and work wasted. Faith means hope for life because no one can never know the entirety of truth. And if God needs us humans to prove He exists, He's not all He's cracked up to be.
3."I think I am capable of logic and reason.": Again, holistic points of view. I am capable of logic and reason...to an extent.
Question 1: I don't know enough about Hare Krishna's. I won't bet my life on something I don't know.
Question 2: I don't bet my life on the existence of Allah. Allah's existence is not circumstantial to my life. Only the followers of the religion mentioning him can affect me.
Question 3: I must and do because God is my only faith and stay. No one else but Him, regardless of logical searches. I can't have faith in people. I've seen what people are capable of. I can't have faith in myself. I'm a person. Faith in nature? Nature is fickle and cruel. Other gods? They want me to earn my way. That sounds like the world, and I don't trust or have faith in the world. God gives me salvation for free and all I have to do is believe? That sounds novel and something like an all powerful deity would do. I accept.
Apologies for Question 4 and my comment on your third assumption.
ReplyDeleteSeeing how they got mixed up.
ReplyDeleteI think an additional fundamental assumption is implicit in this blog. Something like:
ReplyDelete4) I am willing to bet my life that my senses, combined with logical reasoning, are capable of getting me to satisfactory conclusions for all (or enough) of the important questions I am asking.
I am not willing to make this assumption myself, partially because it precludes the possibility that at least some truths important to life are beyond human sense or reasoning and must be revealed to us in order to be known. I have other reasons for not accepting this assumption as well that I would be happy to share, but I really want to hear your thoughts on assumption #4, and so I won't add to this comment.
Hi Will!
ReplyDeleteThank you for keeping the comment short so a response is easier to generate!
Your #4 is certainly something I am doing! I heartfully agree with the statement: "I am willing to bet my life that my senses, combined with logical reasoning, are capable of getting me to satisfactory conclusions for all (or enough) of the important questions I am asking."
Will,
ReplyDeleteIn response to your second paragraph,
we should get coffee.