![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
mintogrubb.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsYes, I know that large chunks of the Bible are based on Jewish National Myth and 'make believe'.
But so are lots of English and American 'history'. It doesn't have to be absolutely true to be inspiring, uplifting or instructive to contemplate.
Dawkins claims that teaching the Christian faith, or any other religious faith to children is a form of child abuse. Me, I am not so sure. Children can be told the story of Noah's ark, but when they get to be old enough to ask serious questions, we can tell them the facts as we know them, that it never really happened.
This would give them a grounding in the culture that they were raised in, and also help them to think critically about their world in other areas - like politics maybe. "The value of fairy tales is not what they tell us about dragons, but they tell us how dragons can be beaten", to paraphrase Chesterton. The Christian faith gave us more than the Crusades and the Inquisition - ask for details ;)
But so are lots of English and American 'history'. It doesn't have to be absolutely true to be inspiring, uplifting or instructive to contemplate.
Dawkins claims that teaching the Christian faith, or any other religious faith to children is a form of child abuse. Me, I am not so sure. Children can be told the story of Noah's ark, but when they get to be old enough to ask serious questions, we can tell them the facts as we know them, that it never really happened.
This would give them a grounding in the culture that they were raised in, and also help them to think critically about their world in other areas - like politics maybe. "The value of fairy tales is not what they tell us about dragons, but they tell us how dragons can be beaten", to paraphrase Chesterton. The Christian faith gave us more than the Crusades and the Inquisition - ask for details ;)
Re: If you had said agnostic I'd agree but...
Date: 29/7/11 19:38 (UTC)^ Tit for tat ^ ;)
#1) Causality is a fundimental element of our percieved universe.
#2) From #1; Everything that happens has a cause (even if that cause is not immediatly apperant)
#3) If everything that happens were to be caused to by something else, there would be an infinite chain of causes. (infinite regression)
#4) Because or percieved universe has a finite beginning and likely an end (as supported by scientific observation regarding the overall expansion and cooling of the interstellar medium) #3 can't happen.
Conclusion) From #2 and #4; There must be an "Ultimate" or "First Cause" beyond which nothing more can be sought. Such an "Ulimate Cause" would logically imply some kind of creative force intellegent or otherwise. Aristotle's "Unmoved Mover".
Re: If you had said agnostic I'd agree but...
Date: 30/7/11 04:55 (UTC)here is why:
#2 should read as:
From #1; everything that happens appears to have a cause
since 1 admits that it is an element of our perceived universe--our perceptions aren't always correct (e.g. we sit on a rock and that rock appears to be standing still and not in motion, but we know that the rock is spinning and the earth is circling the sun)
as such we can accept our perceptions as perceptions and not attempt to claim them as truths
#1 is true. causality is part of our perceived universe. that does not entail our perception being correct