Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×
User Journal

Journal Journal: I've got my first freak. 6

I just noticed I've got my frist freak (a guy who classifies me as his foe), and I started wondering why, because I try not to piss off people.

It was quite obvious this guy was into religion. I only discussed a religious topic once on /. because someone was trying to produce philosophical proof of the existence of God. It started out with the cosmological argument (First Cause) and drifted towards the argument from design. I falsified his arguments in reasonable terms and stopped the discussion when he seemed to move towards the ontological argument (I don't like stupid tautologies).

Eversince the enlightment, philosophy has had an antropocentric view of God and favours the agnostic standpoint. The only way you can squeeze some glimpse of God into purely rational thinking is by pointing out the direct, personal religious/spiritual experiences people sometimes have. These however are neither sensorial nor intellectual and therefore are outside of the scope of philosophy. If you want to take this road you have to cooperate with the human sciences to prove the ultimate reality of these experiences.

This road however isn't very promising either, because you start out on the pretext that these experiences are not sensorial, and you run into the philosophical paradox called the "Cartesian theatre" as soon as you propose spiritual experiences are sensorial: if the metaphysical causes sensorial experiences, the metaphysical must have physical properties, there must be a physical connection or link to the metaphysical. Such a connection has ofcouse never been found, finding one would mean finding a source of magic.

I think it's sad taking this agnostic standpoint makes one a religious person's foe, especially because I'm not at all adversive towards religion and spirituality. I only think our beliefs should hold up to our intellectual standards. As such, I must accept one neither can prove nor disprove God's existence philosophically or scientifically. If God exists, He must operate in other realms, beyond the touchable and thinkable. In other words I can accept existentialism, but I can certainly not accept fundamentalism and its ugly child creationism.

What amazes me here, is how this particular guy keeps up his balancing act. He's obviously very intelligent but at the same time has this very short temper. Hey, wise man, if you read this: I bet you're running gematria software on your box, perhaps even stuff you've written yourself. Maybe it was a bit premature putting me on your shitlist?

Slashdot Top Deals

A computer without COBOL and Fortran is like a piece of chocolate cake without ketchup and mustard.