A good Catholic should not be condescending with the "enemy", or watch with sympathy. But I'm not a good Catholic. And this is at least a place to start. It is true that atheists are neither soft nor pleasing to the believers, at best treat us as naive, or even to scoundrels. On the other hand, even the believers when we bring you, know to be really unpleasant. All this concerns the ways, sociology, certain historical facts, but if you scratch these cultural and political scale, what remains of deep, serious, important?
is a fact that modern atheism has lost much of its theoretical power with the end of scientific determinism, and now those who reject all forms of spirituality with indignation nineteenth century the triumphs of reason calling for the candor of Comte, are really 'tenderness. However, there is a class of atheistic arguments that deserve to be taken seriously, it is the provocation of pastafariani or, more strictly, the paradox of the invisible gardener (or tea rose, or others ... ). They argue that God is empty hypothesis, that since there was no pretext of objectivity for the presence of the divine in the world any claim to that effect in the nature of arbitrariness. And then if no one can bring evidence, why prefer a historical religion - Christianity, for example, or Islam - a belief system brought by an unlikely prophet, in which the deity was manifested as a plate of spaghetti from Outer Space? The reasoning is flawless. The life of Jesus, the miracles of the saints, visions of Muhammad ... facts recounted, occurred long ago because he believed? Review, only opinion. And if the review is already far from certain, let alone how much more to the truth (which is the only end to which a believer should strive for).
I think that anyone who reflects on any issue in good faith deserves to be heard because he has something interesting to say. So, what can be interesting to say to me Pastafari a Catholic? The catch: the laity do not like raids in the only form of knowledge which they consider valid. For example, you find it intolerable that deny objective evidence of paleontology to support literal interpretations of the Book of Genesis , and myself. With their arguments and a bit coarse 'approximations, tell us who believe, however, a very important thing: a God who "puts his feet on the plate," is creating a role-play man as a puppet is not only unpleasant, but it is not likely. It is not just a lesson. The prayers of our churches regurgitate calling, are required to everything: health, be doing good business, good luck for us and bad for those we consider enemies ... statues of the Virgin Mary that weep blood at election time, ex-voto, relics, crucifixes they become threatening to wield weapons against "those others" (not to mention those who really wield the weapons and in the name of God over and rivers of blood) .
faith does not impose itself, spirituality is a discovery that takes a hard road in which the only reference must be the truth, ruthlessly eliminating any bias, considering each case in a more objective than do scientists with them, without respect for any authority or teacher. The stakes are too great, if I want is the very meaning of my life I can not be satisfied with a comforting certainty of deception. That's why I can appreciate those who want to show the foolishness of my existential perspective, and willingly accept to be questioned. After all the atheists say to us as believers should not be God, an unlikely superhero whimsical and exuberant much closer to the Olympic to the Source of Being, the god in which we do not believe pastafariani is the same God in whom I believe even . So atheism is the only logical outcome that can have a serious spiritual quest free from bias and influences? Not necessarily. In fact, the modern secular clericalism are suffering from a limiting any possibility of constructive development of their arguments, although the destructive part are partly shared. There are some real limits that are insurmountable dogma on which shatters any possibility of development of non-trivial discussion on spirituality. For example, there is an outdated conception of science, not taking into account the limitations of formal systems, the complexity and indeterminism. Or the tendency to shift the discourse from the theoretical aspects invariably those quotas, such as the misdeeds of the Catholic Church over the centuries, or contradictions which we encounter if we take literally the biblical account of creation, rather than deal with St. Thomas or St. Augustine. But even when the speech is being carried out in the most neutral and fair as possible, there is a fundamental limitation in the atheistic arguments, namely the fact of reducing the entire possibilities of knowledge to a single form. In fact, if we postulate that the only acceptable form of inquiry into the reality is that with which one studies the material phenomena, here we have implicitly admitted that nothing exists outside of this area, so any reasoning on a transcendent level carried out in this way can have no meaning.
We agree that the reality of God can not be included in the universe, but this does not mean that God does not exist, rather than its reality is broader and includes possibly the universe. To know is to align your mind to reality, and create models is not the only way this can happen. After all, is it not true that every day we exercise forms of knowledge (intuitive, emotional ,...) other than rational? Wishing to remain strictly within the rational knowledge, what will be the answer to the question of the existence of the universe? If in fact the material reality necessarily exists, what is the reason for this need? But what if the universe is pure contingency, from its origins in such an arbitrary act? Faced with these questions that mark the limits of a constituent of a scientific survey, the "seeker of truth" perceives an abyss from which space and time emerge as a small rock on a boundless ocean and agree to play the game on roads involve him in person, knowing that the price is that it can no longer be an observer, separate from the rest of reality, and that every aspect of everything that manages to capture something of themselves will be lost.
0 comments:
Post a Comment