The Atheists are going to love this. First I begin by saying
that Science is Dead and now I proclaim that God is a Fact.
By “atheists”, of course, I mean a specific, stereotyped,
self-caricaturing group of dogmatists that I envision in my mind, based on
extrapolations from experience.
They may very well say: “Have you been living under the
rock?”
Let me make my point clearer, then:
What is a Fact? A fact, by my definition, (drawn from
personal reading rather than some readily-accessible definition on the internet*)
is something that is irrefutable. One cannot FAIRLY negate its existence.
Hitherto, I had claimed that, usually, a “fact” is the
result of not having thought things through carefully. But that is in fact not
a fact but an opinion taken to be a fact.
Why is God a fact then?
That I cannot explain and need not to. Suffice to ask is:
Why ought I not to proclaim it, nonchalantly? Is it perhaps because I proclaim
it with such confidence that one should think it was as though the Fact had to
be accepted by every one?
And therein lies the fallacy – there’s the rub. “As Though”.
I do not expect at all for others to accept this Fact on my say-so. That would
be a matter of opinion. Further more, I do not even begin to claim that anyone
could avail himself of this fact. But most importantly perhaps (for you the
skeptics to hear): I do not claim that the Absence of God is not a fact. But
then I cannot claim that its absence Is a fact, for I do not know such a fact.
But others might.
Obviously, dealing with a Paradox that is the ground of this
incomprehensible Universe, it is not too absurd to sensibly say: Those two
facts – the Existence of God for one person and its Non-existence for another –
are not mutually exclusive. I see a total vacancy of reason for why this most basic
of paradoxes should be condemned as meaningless. In fact, the verity of such a
paradox invokes the entire essence of Humility and Doubt.
There can BE no facts in science, because science as a mode
of inquiry deals with theory. To confuse an opinion in science with fact is to
exit science, for science must all ways be open to being falsified lest it
fester. Nothing is settled in science, except, as I have said, by overlooking
things, Too great is the tendency, I might say, for people operating in what
must surely be a very linear mode of thinking to settle upon a hypothesis as “fact”
because they do not avail themselves of the imagination to think outside of the
philosophical confines that render another variant impossible to conceive. This
is perhaps why science condemns philosophy, so that as a world-view it may
adhere to its existing philosophical prejudices and refuse to admit that they
are entirely prejudices by any definition.
So the atheist says: Science rescued us from Religion. It
did nothing of the kind. To deny my freedom to claim “Science is Dead” and “God
is a Fact” is to enact a dogma, the very thing that the (again, stereotypically)
atheist person hypocritically crusades against. There must be at least three
categories: science, religion, and creed. Throughout the known history of the
humanity, man has condemned human consciousness and even the human body to
slavery through Creed. This was done in by the Church, and now it is done by
the Scientific Community. But there have all ways been outliers in defiance of
it. In ancient Chinese society, they were the Taoists. In Indian society, they
were the Hindu yogis. In Christian society, the mystics and several theologians
were such a heretical group. And now a new form of Shamanism is emerging out of
old traditions, seemingly combining the old forms. Meanwhile, there are
researchers in the Community of scientists that are vilified as heretics for
challenging essentially philosophical presuppositions. Maybe what Philosophy has
to offer us is another form of shamanism and freedom from dogma.
Science itself here may be divided in two: World-view and
Inquiry. The Inquiry is based in Doubt. Yet Doubt is all ways a matter of
opinion, so even there Science has nothing to do with Fact. One can only Doubt
an Opinion. One does not Doubt what one Knows.
Whoever proclaims that I ought NOT to proclaim the
Factuality of God, I ask: Why? One might say: “That’s just your opinion.”
Wrong. It may be YOUR opinion that it is a matter of opinion. But you are
mistaken. To the best of my memory, this Fact had all ways BEEN a fact even
when I leant it not the name God. It was a Fact to me even when I held the
opinion that there was no God or that I did not know him. But it was not until
I lost God that I found him again and found him to be God; hitherto I simply
had not used that word.
But here I must make it clear: I do not subscribe to the
Bible. The Bible is not a fact, for every reading of it is done by a human
being. It must surely be a matter of opinion. Even if one finds a Fact within
it, that Fact cannot be binding upon anyone. No Facts can. Only opinions can,
and most or all of such things are done poorly. Why should you condemn me for
speaking of God? You cannot condemn me for a fact because I cannot change a
Fact, and therefore I cannot be held responsible. I can only be held
responsible for my opinions, which I can change; they are malleable. For you to
claim that this Fact originated out of Opinion is misinformed, presumptuous,
and wrong; I may have never HAD an opinion of God; I only came to discover it.
I was raised more or less secularly and identified myself that way, to the best
of my knowledge, until I realized that what I craved, lost and found again was
God. But that narrative is all ready an opinion; it is merely how I make sense
of my past to lend myself an Ethos. This last concern is on my mind: Atheists
who do NOT possess the Fact of God’s absence but merely possess an opinion of
it would surely rage against me in order to defend their opinions. This
insecurity is understandable. As I have said: It is totally possible for one to
possess the Fact of God’s Absence. Yet those who do not will be insecure in
their Opinions.
*People who look up definitions on their phones crack me up,
though in a bad way.
Dm.A.A.
that Science is Dead and now I proclaim that God is a Fact.
By “atheists”, of course, I mean a specific, stereotyped,
self-caricaturing group of dogmatists that I envision in my mind, based on
extrapolations from experience.
They may very well say: “Have you been living under the
rock?”
Let me make my point clearer, then:
What is a Fact? A fact, by my definition, (drawn from
personal reading rather than some readily-accessible definition on the internet*)
is something that is irrefutable. One cannot FAIRLY negate its existence.
Hitherto, I had claimed that, usually, a “fact” is the
result of not having thought things through carefully. But that is in fact not
a fact but an opinion taken to be a fact.
Why is God a fact then?
That I cannot explain and need not to. Suffice to ask is:
Why ought I not to proclaim it, nonchalantly? Is it perhaps because I proclaim
it with such confidence that one should think it was as though the Fact had to
be accepted by every one?
And therein lies the fallacy – there’s the rub. “As Though”.
I do not expect at all for others to accept this Fact on my say-so. That would
be a matter of opinion. Further more, I do not even begin to claim that anyone
could avail himself of this fact. But most importantly perhaps (for you the
skeptics to hear): I do not claim that the Absence of God is not a fact. But
then I cannot claim that its absence Is a fact, for I do not know such a fact.
But others might.
Obviously, dealing with a Paradox that is the ground of this
incomprehensible Universe, it is not too absurd to sensibly say: Those two
facts – the Existence of God for one person and its Non-existence for another –
are not mutually exclusive. I see a total vacancy of reason for why this most basic
of paradoxes should be condemned as meaningless. In fact, the verity of such a
paradox invokes the entire essence of Humility and Doubt.
There can BE no facts in science, because science as a mode
of inquiry deals with theory. To confuse an opinion in science with fact is to
exit science, for science must all ways be open to being falsified lest it
fester. Nothing is settled in science, except, as I have said, by overlooking
things, Too great is the tendency, I might say, for people operating in what
must surely be a very linear mode of thinking to settle upon a hypothesis as “fact”
because they do not avail themselves of the imagination to think outside of the
philosophical confines that render another variant impossible to conceive. This
is perhaps why science condemns philosophy, so that as a world-view it may
adhere to its existing philosophical prejudices and refuse to admit that they
are entirely prejudices by any definition.
So the atheist says: Science rescued us from Religion. It
did nothing of the kind. To deny my freedom to claim “Science is Dead” and “God
is a Fact” is to enact a dogma, the very thing that the (again, stereotypically)
atheist person hypocritically crusades against. There must be at least three
categories: science, religion, and creed. Throughout the known history of the
humanity, man has condemned human consciousness and even the human body to
slavery through Creed. This was done in by the Church, and now it is done by
the Scientific Community. But there have all ways been outliers in defiance of
it. In ancient Chinese society, they were the Taoists. In Indian society, they
were the Hindu yogis. In Christian society, the mystics and several theologians
were such a heretical group. And now a new form of Shamanism is emerging out of
old traditions, seemingly combining the old forms. Meanwhile, there are
researchers in the Community of scientists that are vilified as heretics for
challenging essentially philosophical presuppositions. Maybe what Philosophy has
to offer us is another form of shamanism and freedom from dogma.
Science itself here may be divided in two: World-view and
Inquiry. The Inquiry is based in Doubt. Yet Doubt is all ways a matter of
opinion, so even there Science has nothing to do with Fact. One can only Doubt
an Opinion. One does not Doubt what one Knows.
Whoever proclaims that I ought NOT to proclaim the
Factuality of God, I ask: Why? One might say: “That’s just your opinion.”
Wrong. It may be YOUR opinion that it is a matter of opinion. But you are
mistaken. To the best of my memory, this Fact had all ways BEEN a fact even
when I leant it not the name God. It was a Fact to me even when I held the
opinion that there was no God or that I did not know him. But it was not until
I lost God that I found him again and found him to be God; hitherto I simply
had not used that word.
But here I must make it clear: I do not subscribe to the
Bible. The Bible is not a fact, for every reading of it is done by a human
being. It must surely be a matter of opinion. Even if one finds a Fact within
it, that Fact cannot be binding upon anyone. No Facts can. Only opinions can,
and most or all of such things are done poorly. Why should you condemn me for
speaking of God? You cannot condemn me for a fact because I cannot change a
Fact, and therefore I cannot be held responsible. I can only be held
responsible for my opinions, which I can change; they are malleable. For you to
claim that this Fact originated out of Opinion is misinformed, presumptuous,
and wrong; I may have never HAD an opinion of God; I only came to discover it.
I was raised more or less secularly and identified myself that way, to the best
of my knowledge, until I realized that what I craved, lost and found again was
God. But that narrative is all ready an opinion; it is merely how I make sense
of my past to lend myself an Ethos. This last concern is on my mind: Atheists
who do NOT possess the Fact of God’s absence but merely possess an opinion of
it would surely rage against me in order to defend their opinions. This
insecurity is understandable. As I have said: It is totally possible for one to
possess the Fact of God’s Absence. Yet those who do not will be insecure in
their Opinions.
*People who look up definitions on their phones crack me up,
though in a bad way.
Dm.A.A.
No comments:
Post a Comment