There is a new book out by Vincent Bugliosi called Divinity of Doubt. In one of the book reviews Bugliosi calls himself an agnostic and said, "As an agnostic, I believe that the question of God's existence is impenetrable, that it is beyond human comprehension."
Leaving behind the point that he said "I believe...," making him a believer, this is the kind of bullshit I find maddening--someone who is too blind or too afraid to take the final step out of belief and into reality and decides to wimp out. I can understand if someone is still moving toward reality and is in the transitional state of agnosticism. But for those who think it's a valid place to permanently rest someone's mind, it's sad because it's actually someone trying to have it both ways.
Let me explain.
The concept of supernatural beings (deities) with the ability to alter the laws of physics and nature is a human invention. There has never been any proof, nothing even close. All we have are “visions,” ghost writers, mystics, story-tellers, and the like. As humans we can make up stories about all kinds of things, and do. In almost every case we know that the stories are fiction and treat them as such, never trying to prove they’re real.
However, from time to time, we get a person who presents us with a story that they insist is real even though there is no proof, much better explanations for what they claim happened, just too far out to be considered fact, or without enough information to make any conclusions. This last scenario is where agnosticism sneaks in, but badly. A reasonable point is twisted just enough to make it still seem valid while killing its reasonableness.
To say that someone’s claim doesn’t come with enough information to show its validity is not the same thing as claiming the question is ultimately “impenetrable.” Time and time again throughout history claims that something will never be accomplished by our lowly species have turned out to be false. Therefore, to claim that something is “beyond human comprehension” is in my book to assert the claim to be bogus.
We, as a species, have proven that we can figure stuff out, lots of stuff at an ever-increasing rate. If someone comes up with a question that is ultimately not able to be cracked, the question itself is faulty, not the human attempts at trying to crack it. It is a bad question and should be thrown out. It certainly doesn’t deserve to be promoted as so difficult that it can’t be answered--ever--and, therefore, is to be given a place of honor.
This kind of question falls into the same category has ancient aliens in UFOs having built the Egyptian pyramids, would Spiderman beat Batman in a fight, or if cows have a soul. They’re not “impenetrable,” implying some status worthy of special status. They’re bullshit questions to be discarded.
So, for those who make the claim that the question of any particular god’s existence is too hard for us to answer, come up with a better question. In this case a much better question would be: Why do humans continue to believe? It is a question I’m sure we can crack.
Leaving behind the point that he said "I believe...," making him a believer, this is the kind of bullshit I find maddening--someone who is too blind or too afraid to take the final step out of belief and into reality and decides to wimp out. I can understand if someone is still moving toward reality and is in the transitional state of agnosticism. But for those who think it's a valid place to permanently rest someone's mind, it's sad because it's actually someone trying to have it both ways.
Let me explain.
The concept of supernatural beings (deities) with the ability to alter the laws of physics and nature is a human invention. There has never been any proof, nothing even close. All we have are “visions,” ghost writers, mystics, story-tellers, and the like. As humans we can make up stories about all kinds of things, and do. In almost every case we know that the stories are fiction and treat them as such, never trying to prove they’re real.
However, from time to time, we get a person who presents us with a story that they insist is real even though there is no proof, much better explanations for what they claim happened, just too far out to be considered fact, or without enough information to make any conclusions. This last scenario is where agnosticism sneaks in, but badly. A reasonable point is twisted just enough to make it still seem valid while killing its reasonableness.
To say that someone’s claim doesn’t come with enough information to show its validity is not the same thing as claiming the question is ultimately “impenetrable.” Time and time again throughout history claims that something will never be accomplished by our lowly species have turned out to be false. Therefore, to claim that something is “beyond human comprehension” is in my book to assert the claim to be bogus.
We, as a species, have proven that we can figure stuff out, lots of stuff at an ever-increasing rate. If someone comes up with a question that is ultimately not able to be cracked, the question itself is faulty, not the human attempts at trying to crack it. It is a bad question and should be thrown out. It certainly doesn’t deserve to be promoted as so difficult that it can’t be answered--ever--and, therefore, is to be given a place of honor.
This kind of question falls into the same category has ancient aliens in UFOs having built the Egyptian pyramids, would Spiderman beat Batman in a fight, or if cows have a soul. They’re not “impenetrable,” implying some status worthy of special status. They’re bullshit questions to be discarded.
So, for those who make the claim that the question of any particular god’s existence is too hard for us to answer, come up with a better question. In this case a much better question would be: Why do humans continue to believe? It is a question I’m sure we can crack.
No comments:
Post a Comment