|
OK, on a second reading, I believe I more or less agree with where the OP is going.
It is singularly unprofitable for all to attempt to "prove" or "disprove" God using logic. Theistic faith is arational, and it is certainly true that when it comes to such faith, one either has it, and accepts the parameters of the theistic paradigm, or does not, and will rather confine themselves to the skeptical or "scientific" paradigm (I use the quotation marks because I think it's unfair to say that science and religion cannot co-exist. They can, so long as the scientist is open-minded and the religion is not fundamentalist).
A great portion of the Middle Ages were dedicated to people attempting to use complex arguments of logic and reason to prove religious claims to one another. All failed spectacularly.
There's nothing wrong, IMO, with discussing the subject in a respectful, curious, "I am interested in understanding why you believe what you believe" way. Trouble comes when anyone, with either opinion, begins to say, "You should believe what I believe, otherwise you are wrong, and therefore, bad."
__________________
Dull sublunary lovers love,
Whose soul is sense, cannot admit
Absence, because it doth remove
That thing which elemented it.
(From "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" by John Donne)
|