One of my major qualms with religion in “essence” rather than practice—and something I’ve struggled with since childhood—is the way believers (of any creed) disavow origins. They first learn that God (or Allah, Zeus, or Odin) is the infallible Creator and Ruler, and then read the Holy Word (which inspires this dogma). Next, they simultaneously use the Word as proof of His existence and truth, AND use His existence as proof of the Word’s truth. Thus, there is a sort of post hoc ergo propter hoc employment of logic; both His existence and His Word function as defense for the other, but neither take credence as original. What this logic leads to is only disavowal: Because He exists I cannot question the Word; Because of the Word, I know He exists.
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
I'm lifting this jewel from the blog of Beverly Penn. Her's is not an atheist blog, yet she sums up my feelings on the matter quite succinctly.