The real issue?
Submitted by Jules on May 21 2002 15:58:01
In reply to How many people here agree with Splash? submitted by A.I. Watcher on May 21 2002 09:36:26
|
Hi, Can I try to get to the real issue in this debate? There are some things on which it is possible to define absolute truth, because we have enough evidence to go on, and there are some things on which it is not possible to define absolute truth, because we don't have enough evidence to go on. The debate here is about which category religion falls into. Can there be absolute truth where religion is concerned? The fact is that some people think there can, and some people think there can't. Of course it depends what we mean by "religion". If we mean, "Did Jesus exist, teach such and such and die by crucifixion?" then we can get pretty close to absolute truth, at least as close as we can for other historical figures. But if we mean, "Is Christianity more true than other religions?" then the answer is more open. Some people do think there is enough evidence to answer "Yes," some say "No," and some say "The question is meaningless." I can see why you find Splash's comments at least potentially evil. After all, however much Christians try to deny it, the belief that Christianity is the only way has led to much evil in the world (as it has for other religions as well). But I don't see why it's evil in itself to think there can be absolute truth in religion. What is evil is setting out to belittle or persecute those who disagree, or to say that they are themselves evil. But I don't think anyone here, even those who do believe in absolute truth in religion, would say that those who reject it are evil because of it. I can understand Splash's feeling sorry for Einstein not knowing the same spiritual experience as he does, especially if he has concluded that knowing that experience in this life has relevance for the next. Wouldn't you feel sorry for someone who hadn't experienced something you value? But as I read it, he's not condeming anyone. Even if you think Splash's beliefs are potentially evil, you must concede that he isn't being evil himself in the way he expresses them. At least I don't think he personally deserves your abuse. You have strong feelings on these issues, obviously, but if you want to take a stand against evil, and make a stand for good here, I think you could take a more effective approach. If you happen to think people like Splash are hopelessly misled, try to put yourself in their position, and think of the best way to persuade them. If your aim is to persuade people that it is wrong to hold absolute views on religion, the best thing to do is to argue the point rationally, and not get personally abusive; you will achieve more that way. There is nothing wrong with coherent, rational debate; there is a lot wrong with abuse. I really think you have some important points that Christians need to hear and decide how to respond to; but it seems you are spoiling your chance of being heard when you call people names. If you have some other agenda, though, it might be worth us knowing what it is, and why you do think abuse will help. Back to the question you asked: If you want my personal opinion, I think there may be an absolute religious truth out there, but by definition it's impossible for us to know it. But, for me, there is enough evidence that the teaching of Jesus got as close as anyone. So, no I'm not a fanatic. Best wishes, Jules |
Follow ups: