|
how is this happening again?
look. it's kinda simple.
what is true is the result of an operation that does not violate the rules that shape operations.
only a religious person might invest in a notion of Truth that transcends particular types of demonstrations.
you, will, are making a religious argument.
not only that, but you commit a basic tactical error: you underestimate your adversary.
you cannot possibly argue that christianity is incapable of reason because there's the god character flitting about at the axiom level.
you just can't: it's a stupid argument.
you can't even say it about protestants, though at times, i'd like to.
when you, will, talk about "reason" what you designate by it is "arguments that i like" or "what seems true to me based on the rules that i impose for demonstrations"--if it's even that formal. which it isn't.
that you can demonstrate to your own satisfaction that this god character doesn't exist means that for you the matter is settled. others, who i might disagree with as well btw, can come to opposite conclusions in this respect--but that doesn't make them drooling idiots and yourself Mister Reason.
if anything, the idiocy resides in the claim to be Mister Reason.
you don't need to make the appeal to argue your position.
it's just your position.
it's a stronger position to argue from consequences--look at what these assumptions have lead to; it's a stronger position to argue that you simply cannot make such claims because you do not and cannot know what they refer to. there are a thousand arguments against belief in some christian god-function.
but you can't say that is it True that there is no god-character.
if you do it, you're no different from the characters you oppose.
you're playing the same game.
worst of all, it's a boring game.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|