Anacoluthon64
Also, Gardner makes no attempt to assert the actuality of god's existence itself (and thereby he avoids ending up in all sorts of hot water); he merely provides a utilitarian reason for why he himself holds such a belief.
On page 222 of 'The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener' Gardner closes his chapter on "FAITH: Why I am not an Atheist" by quoting from Unamuno:
Wishing that God may exist, and acting and feeling as if He did exist. And desiring God's existence and acting comfortably with this desire, is the means by which we create God--that is, whereby God creates himself in us, manifests Himself to us, opens and reveals himself to us. For God goes out to meet him who seeks Him with love and by love, and hides Himself from him who searches for Him with the cold and loveless reason...
-snip-
I know that I sound harsh and extremist on this.
Unless believers can accept something like: "faith in God may not be the best thing for everyone" or "maybe atheism is a better way than belief for some people" - someone is sacrificed. Because the harsh reality is that faith in an immanent god is not the best thing for some people. To believe in the sort of God that we create within our selves, where does that leave us to answer those who kill because their god directs them to? In love of course, the word in which some of the worst atrocities are accomplished.
Gardner's view seems to be that if we only let go of reason for a while, we might find god. I am saying that reason is like a rock in a great storm of chaos and irrationality. Doesn't he understand that if some people let go they will simply be destroyed or worse, be the source of great destruction?
So I stand my ground, and I think that I do understand. I only ask that Christians accept that the way of belief and faith is not always the best way. That would seem easy, but religion is like having one product to sell so therefore everyone must need it...
infornography
Just because you or I do not need a comforting delusion or faith based belief does not mean that others do not need it in their lives. Many people feel the need for faith and there is insufficient evidence for me to proclaim that it is merely a security blanket or actual sprituality so I withhold my judgement of them. Even if I were sure that it was nothing more than a crutch or security blanket, I would still respect them as people and respect their beliefs as long as they respected my position as well.
This is well said. I am not sure that respecting our position of unbelief is compatible with many religions. Maybe as a means to a greater end of finding faith?
It seems to go a little like this: If each person contains within them the ability to know the truth of God, then to reject God is to willingly lie in the face of truth, or reject truth. Such an act is evil, evil must be overcome and ultimately destroyed. Etc etc.
Religion is ultimately an authoritarian epistemology. It may be of a greater good for humanity, but what of the small minority that it is not? They are defined as angels or demons, saints or heretics.
