They see religion as a cancerous infection that has pervaded the corridors of time, leaving a bloody streak of violence down the hall. To them, religion is an illusory coping mechanism begotten by our desire to transcend the temporal world. God is viewed by them as a fictitious, greedy, judgmental bigot waiting wistfully in the heavens to strike down any who deviate from his impossible moral law. Seeming to be sure of themselves, they believe that the abolition of God is necessary for the advancement of mankind. They have arrived at this place of anti-theism with certainty, shooting down the idea of God as if it is for the intellectually naive and/or the ignorant. However, this certainty cannot be valid as far as to deny others acceptance of God as truth. To paraphrase John Stuart Mill, to be sure it (an opinion) is false is to suppose themselves incapable of error; to assume their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty, an assumption of infallibility. Given the preponderance pertaining to God there must also be a fair number of people who are certain of his existence. Due to our fallen nature and incapability of fathoming the things of God we cannot claim an absolute certainty by plain reason, or, to put a more secular way, we haven’t developed enough, or have not been equipped with the proper reasoning skills to claim an absolute certainty. If we accept that there are no absolute certainties deducted by plain reason, we have to also understand and accept the consequences of such reasoning, namely that for every hint of certainty on the issues of God on both sides, there is an equal amount of uncertainty due to the absence of absolutes. Some are swayed on either side of the fence on this issue, but that requires a step of faith in either direction. To claim one to be right and the other completely wrong would be to nullify everything I have previously said, but we can consider the validity of each step of faith. Given our desire to taste the wonders of this world, our drive for sex, money, pleasure and ease of conscience we could very well understand why the idea of God’s nonexistence might be beneficial to us. These desires exist in all of mankind inherently; it would seem to be fitting to call this a starting point. If this is our starting point at birth, it would seem much more difficult to go against it and incline ourselves to God than to simply continue living fully for ourselves. Of course, there are positives to the idea of God, mainly the idea of salvation, to put it concisely. But even with this idea in mind it is not without its difficulties to stay inclined to God and go against the grain of this world, constantly being attacked, scoffed at, refuted for an “illegitimate” faith by those who have claimed an absolute by plain reasoning and seduced by our interminable desire for pleasure. The idea of God is equally as valid, as far as reason is understood, as the idea against it, and when considered with rigor, the right step of faith to take. I will live for God; it would be against conscience to do anything other.
-
Search It!
-
Recent Entries
-
Links