thread: 2006-09-08 : Picky-choosy religion, 3 views
On 2006-09-12, Jye Nicolson wrote:
Hi Sydney,
"But "allegiance to an unelected alien power"—huh? Are you suggesting that no religion is legitimate unless its adherents get to vote on their god?"
Absolutely not. I'd never suggest that any religion is legitimate.
If beings like those described by religion were demonstrated to exist, I would suggest diplomacy and not worship would be the appropriate way of dealing with them. Whether these non-human intelligences arrive in flying saucers or on wings of fire would not seem to be particularly material to that point.
The role that these beings played in the history of the universe would be extremely interesting, but I cannot think of any acts in that history, up to and including its creation, that would automatically grant them sovereignty over the human race or any of its members. Which is assuming, of course, that we accept the assertions of those beings - something that I hope we would not do without compelling evidence.
If Gabriel has time to explain to the Prophet that he is entitled to extra wives, then I think it's reasonable to expect him to show up at the UN building and conduct talks.
Now! Let's assume that, right now, your God exists. I don't know anything about this entity other than the assertions of his self-proclaimed representatives, who clearly benefit from inducing people to believe those assertions. The only ability I can independently credit this being with is the remarkable property of avoiding proving his existence, like some sort of cosmic master criminal.
My reasons to obey, worship or trust this creature - or those who give him their allegiance - are exceptionally slim. At this point, I wouldn't buy a used car from him. I do not know or trust his agenda, and I have no reason to accept that the agenda professed by his representatives is his true one (experience would lead me to believe it probably isn't). I would be extremely unhappy if those making decisions affecting me were loyal to his agenda.
That's with the hypothetical that I accept this being even exists. In the real world, were I have a very high certainty that this being (or Matreiya or Vishnu or whoever) doesn't exist and never did, I'm hearing you assert the sovereignty of an imaginary being. It doesn't even exist to guide the agenda its "representatives" claim to be acting by! I have a rough time trusting the judgement of those involved.
"It's not as if God is some kind of Third World despot who seized power over the universe and set aside proper electoral democracy. He made the universe. He encompasses the universe: Everything good in it is simply a sub-set of His goodness. If we held an election for Supreme Being, there'd be only one qualified candidate."
You must understand that supporters of political candidates routinely make similar assertions. It would appear to me that you are in the position of making them with a paucity of evidence that even Mr Rove would be reluctant to act on :)
