Simone Weil's weird take on religious belief

Simone Weil's weird take on religious belief Apr 27, 2019 6:46:59 GMT

Quote

Post by Arlon10 on Apr 27, 2019 6:46:59 GMT

Apr 26, 2019 22:25:25 GMT rizdek said:

Apr 26, 2019 7:08:13 GMT Arlon10 said:

   Discussions about any "god" are fraught with uncertainties. It has been compared to explaining the color green to a blind person. There is no "literal" way to do that. If you can see green at all then I can quite "literally" inform you that the leaves on some particular tree at some particular time are green. Otherwise we are left with more poetic attempts at communication. There might be less than perfect analogies available. You might (!) be dissatisfied with the explanation, such as it is, that I can offer.

   I do not "expect," I already know that there are things beyond the plain sight and hearing of human eyes and ears. There are things unknown. We are left to speculate and perhaps on a good day surmise some of the details, but a full picture can be most difficult to obtain.

   Many "Christians" have a habit of assuming their certainty about those things is more justified than it actually is. There are indeed certainties in science, but there are many things quite beyond such science to explain. It is normal to be uncomfortable with uncertainty and many Christians choose not to face uncertainty or pretend to be more certain than they can justify.

   Atheists and fundamentalists are much alike that way. Atheists often claim to know the age of the Earth with more certainty than fundamentalists, but they are all fooling themselves and no one else. No one really knows exactly how old the Earth is. I do not know exactly how old the Earth is and I do not "expect" any god to tell me any time soon.

   This is my point. Atheists and fundamentalists are "plainspoken" in the perjorative sense of that term. They are low ranking soldiers or "grunts" who believe they or their leaders know more than is actually the case. They read at an elementary level and often misread it all.

Ok, then what are you speculations about God's appearance since that was one of your criticisms.

"Atheists" don't claim to know the age of the earth...that is they don't claim to know it with any more certainty than those in the fields of Physics, geology and cosmology suggest. Even some theists believe those scientists are probably on to something and agree the earth is likely ancient. As an atheist but not an expert in the fields of science that apply to ascertaining the age of the earth, I accept with a grain of salt, so to speak, any assertions about the age of the earth. I have no basis to say they are wrong, but I am also well aware that scientific conclusions are often found to be off with new information/calculations, so I recognize that the info provided at sites such as this, while possibly right, might also be wrong.

   Although we both assume that the ability to speak ensures a more thorough understanding of life, I suspect there are exceptions. The ability to speak obviously can help understand many things at a distance, but those are mundane things with much similarity to common experiences.

   Abstract experiences, experiences that are not common, and some other experiences are not always readily communicated in words. It can even happen that the words get in the way. It is sad watching a human have more difficulty in life than a Labrador Retriever because the human uses language ineffectively, where the Labrador doesn't bother and is not confused by the process.

   I have already provided a rather varied if not detailed list of the most widely held notions of a god.