Anon,
If you really believe that, then someone should email Richard Dawkins that if he but only augments his argument to address Paul’s illogical arguments, then the world will be free of a large portion of god believers in one swooping motion.
Felix,
I’m not dictating what peoples motives are in their cognition. What I’m discussing is the systemic measure by which spirituality and the compelling draw towards religion is in humanity.
One thing is rather certain at this point in time: it isn’t rational logic that brings people to their divinities.
People aren’t markedly praying and singing hymns with emotional devotion as a function of logical resolution.
James,
While not directly the tangent, I would personally class that as no different than TPT or Turtle’s redefinition of, “God”.
I can extract “God” into many things; many do.
Extracting to the conceptual force of product doesn’t equate to “God”; a sentient being.
When I state that I do not believe in a god, it is a pretty simple stance. Gods are defined by personal motive of being sentient super-beings which have controlling power over universal forces of nature.
I don’t, either, consider the conceptual force of product, “God”.
I consider it the conceptual force of product.
Omar,
More or less, that’s a kin of the concept I’m going at.
We can argue gods logically all we want; religious adherence is not going to drop markedly below 80% as a result, nor will the ~70% Christian adherence shift much worth noting as a result of any logical points made.
All,
I think if 6.3 million people are willing to believe Joseph Smith was a neo-Pauline incarnation (figuratively speaking) and that a band of Hebrew peoples navigated to South America and founded a new Eden, completely flying in the face of all archaeological and anthropological findings, then I don’t think logic is our basis of leverage - keeping in mind that this isn’t even as personally rooted as believing in a god. As such, I strongly have doubts that the emotional connection people have to their divinities will be so easily subjected to rational logic of pointing out the illogical prose of Paul.
And finally: Paul wasn’t writing for rational logic.
He will, therefore, suck at logical arguments.
He was making a socio-emotional plea; ergo the earlier comparison to Churchill (who’s words neither would hold to rational logic).
Paul can be considered the spirit builder of Christianity; nearly being exclusively interested in defining what the nature of the spiritual connection to Jesus and their god is for the follower, and how that in turn creates a spiritual bond within the community.
His takes on these matters have been a large and consistent resonant stay in Christian culture over time.
But these are not logical arguments properly. People are not compelled to them because they proofed them and found no logical fault, and therefore found reason to believe in this god.
It tends to work the other way around in religion; there is a sense first, and emotional existence and desire. Following that, rational justifications begin to formulate around cohesion with this emotional stance.
This is one of the reasons many of science strongly dislike theological discourses; because theology works pretty much opposite of the (expected) scientific approach.
And lastly on logic and religion; the phrase is not, “Have you reasoned god?”
The phrase is, “Have you found god?”
(the same phrase exists for Jesus as well)
If someone has found their god; you will be rather hard pressed to reason them out of it.
And that’s because finding is done by arriving on a concept of a god which satisfies some form of emotional rest or satisfaction in the individual.
An example: the down and trodden do not turn to believing in a god because there was a proper logical argument presented by an advocate. Instead, they are “rescued” in their “soul” by a compelling plea of hope and sympathy. They find hope renewed and are from that point partially dependent on this facet as part of their new formed self identity emotionally.
If rational logic were the primary motive of religious belief, then it would not be isolated from rational logic in the secular view in society.
If rational logic were the primary motive of religious belief, then Paul would be relatively correct; if religious belief were rationally logical as the primary motive, then there would be no reason for such grand dismissal by secularist academia of religious integration aside from the postulation that secularist academia was avoiding truth through negligence.
However, secularist academia, instead, dismisses religious integration for a simple reason: religious belief is not a rationally logical pursuit.
(those terms are being used in the academic categorical sense; not in common tongue phrase that would otherwise imply that I thought religious belief was a retardant to intelligence.)
