The religious man replies: "Yes, you are right--none of those things are real. There's no empirical support for them whatsoever. But to ridicule me on those grounds is to miss the point--like ridiculing someone on an exercise bike because, for all their effort, they are traveling nowhere. Like the exercise bicyclist, my intent with spirit worship is not to affect a change in the world but to affect a change in myself with respect to the world. The bicyclist's movement is not 'real', but his muscles are strengthened all the same; my spirits are not 'real' but my being is grounded and revealed to me all the same."
The empiricist nods. "Fair enough. But remember well this distinction you make as you carry on your business in the empirical world. Just as a person on an exercise bike should not yell at people to get out of his path, neither can you impose on others in a way that presupposes the realness of your spirits."
"Of course," says the religious man.
***
The above dialog takes place on the empiricist's "home court", so to speak--the religious man admits his deities are not real, but given the context I think it's clear that by "real" he means empirically real--i.e., it can be observed with the senses in the material world. So I don't think he's really yielding any ground to the empiricist, and yet is able to carve out a philosophically defensible position that must appear to the empiricist for all the world like a mysterious and impenetrable walled city that shuns outsiders and keeps to itself.
1 comment:
While this might be a valid, defensible position for the religious man, it's a position that few religious people would be willing to take. In my opinion, most devout individuals would be compelled to assert that their beliefs are certainly based in reality, so real that they are the foundation of existence, and not just their own existence, but of all existence, perceivable or not. And they would most likely assert that there is evidence for their beliefs that they themselves have witnessed, but the unfaithful misinterpret the evidence, are blind to it, are not "chosen" so have not had the privilege to see it, or naively/stubbornly ignore it. Of course, the evidence for a Divine Force is complex and mysterious, so it only makes sense that few would correctly identify it and incorporate its heavy implications into their own lives.
And if a devout person doesn't impose their beliefs on others, it's not because they don't assert that their beliefs have profound implications for everyone, but it's because they have reason not to, possible reasons being: Belief in Divinity is not earnest unless self-discovered; the unbeliever damns him/herself, so let them receive the judgment they deserve; belief in divinity is a long, slow journey and it is best to let it take its natural course, etc.
What I'm trying to get at is: What good is this religious man's argument if no religious man would take such a stance?
PS - I am not of the devout, so I may not be the best representative of their philosophical position. I'd appreciate it if someone who is deeply religious (H?) chime in.
Post a Comment