If an argument has an errant fundamental assumption, all the logic following that error crumbles. For example, if I base argument A on the fact that Holy Text X is inerrant, and then later find out that Holy Text X is not divine, then argument A falls apart.
One can follow the trail of assumptions all the way back to an Original Assumption.
Many people make their original assumption god (YHWH, Allah, Krishna, etc). Others originally assume that they exist. Others are unaware of what their original assumption is (but it can be found when enough questions are asked).
In this post, I want to show why choosing a god for a fundamental assumption is an error. In the next post I will propose a better starting place.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Why it is wrong to make god a fundamental assumption:
Consider the following scenario: A Muslim and a Christian have a debate. The Muslim assumes that Allah is the one true god, that Muhammad is his prophet, and that the Qur'an is god's word. The Christian assumes that YHWH is the one true god, and that the Bible is his word.
Then the Muslim says something like "You are wrong to worship Jesus because Jesus was human, and therefore you are worshipping nature instead of God."
If Islam is assumed, this statement makes complete sense and is a valid attack against Christianity, but if Christianity is assumed, then there is no problem whatsoever.
A reverse scenario also applies.
The Christian says "you are wrong because Islam is works based."
If Christianity is assumed, this is an error. If Islam is assumed, then there is no problem with Islam being work based.
It is unfair to apply the criteria created by one religion to another religion. If a god is assumed, then all the criteria of X religion applies to all the gods that are not assumed, and obviously those other gods make errors (because they are not the god of religion X).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion: Gods should not be original assumptions. If they were, there would be no opportunity for conversation between religions. Everyone would roll the dice, pick a god to believe, and then fundamentaly disagree with each other.
My next post will explore a better alternative: http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2011/06/fundamental-assumptions-part-2.html
From the Christian voice: It is not unfair to judge from out point of view. It is the point of having the belief system, to have a standpoint, and a higher, irrefutable one at that, to discern. To join a faith and follow a creed, and then validate an opposing well-to-do religion is to violate the prospect of joining the institution in the first place. Also, basing a religion off of God is the strength that holds these earthly places, people, and concepts together. Without God, plainly put, there would be no debate. Only people with the common understanding that they're looking for something better. Lastly, there is no "rolling of the dice." There is but one certainty, otherwise, the event wouldn't happen. Destiny and free will of choice give rise to certainty. It either is, or isn't. Either someone worships God, Allah, or the teachings of Buddha...or not.
ReplyDeleteFrom the logical and intuitive perspective: You are absolutely right. Without God as a factor, anyone should be able to talk to anyone about anything. However, about what would they speak? The way to live a good life? How best to do one's laundry in a righteous manner that so behooves him or her? Without God, or a god in question, religions are merely another schema to make men live a particular way. And on that, just about everyone can agree. There's nothing disagreeable about furthering the whole through a little self control and enlightened thinking. In theory everyone could fundamentally agree. In practice, greed and self benefit take over. So yes, without God or a god, "Everyone would just roll the dice, pick a god to believe, and then fundamentaly disagree with each other."
So, the question I pose: If we would fundamentally disagree with each other anyway, why not have God in the mix in the first place?