From: Scott Roberts (jse885@earthlink.net)
Date: Wed Aug 25 2004 - 19:30:31 BST
MSH et al,
> msh says:
> Here's the quibble. Saying that people are wrong in their
> conceptions of God implies that you know what's right. If it's
> "egregious error" to think that God is omniscient, for example, or if
> it's true that "God cannot be conceived (or perceived)" then it's
> fair for us to ask you to elaborate. Why should anyone believe that
> something imperceptible AND inconceivable exists? I respectfully
> suggest that the answer can only be that they really, really WANT to
> believe it.
[Scott:] Well, I know that something imperceptible and inconceivable
exists, namely perceiving and conceiving. But I will grant that one needs
more to accept a religious outlook.
My answer is the existence of revelation, by which I mean three millenia of
Buddhas and Lao Tses, and Shankaras and Eckharts and, in modern times,
people like Sri Aurobindo, John Wren-Lewis, Franklin Merrell-Wolff,
Bernadette Roberts (no relation), and many others. Such people claim to
Know that there is a divine somewhat behind and pervading all physical
existence. If they are all deluded, then I really, really want to be
similarly deluded :-). But I don't think they are, in part because I find
their position to be overall more rational than the secular. By this I mean
that there is nothing irrational in it (denial of scientific findings, for
example), but there is also a logical space for the non-spatio-temporal,
which is a rational requirement of the existence of perceiving and
conceiving.
- Scott
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries -
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Aug 25 2004 - 19:57:55 BST