Did the message to 1 get garbled? Was only 1 listening?
I'm normally not like Gnu Atheists, taking cheap potshots at organized religion. But, per this interesting substory within last week's Florida traffic accident tragic pile-up, this is one time to partially set aside those rules.
For the omnipotent god of
conservative Christians, of course, the only answer is that "god is
inscrutable." Really? Well, as I have said before, then such a god
causes psychological pain to his creatures, at least those who would
like to believe in some higher order in the universe, but can't blindly
accept "inscrutable."
And, contra Gnu Atheists, but
contra stereotyped conservative Christian beliefs, there are people who
at times wish such psychological comforts existed, but not on terms of
blind faith. To use human parenting language, children have blind faith
in a parent only to the point in their maturity in learning what
non-blind levels of trust are, and are to be offered.
That said, non-literalist
Christianity hasn't, for people in the pews, figured out a way beyond
this, at least for thinking people in the pews who would still like some
sort of "higher order." If this order, power, or divinity is less than
omnipotent, while we might yearn for it/him/her to do something, how
much can actually be expected?
In short, without endorsing ideas
of "progress," in the modern social world, many people who are willing
to think these things are at least 16 years old, psychologically. We're
old enough to see that, if there is any "higher order," it may not be
that much above our heads, and that alleged "answers" for these issues
aren't, either.
But, many of us also aren't social
Darwinist Gnu Atheists, either. We reject the idea that it's "weak" to
feel the need for religious solace (or solace of support/comfort groups
in general). And, yes, Gnu Atheists, "name it and claim it" New Agers,
and success gospel Christians are all social Darwinists, or the
psychological equivalents thereof.
No comments:
Post a Comment