Disagreements Among The Faithful
Some suggestion at reconciliation of the supposedly irreconcilable
This is really a follow up to the PPPS of my post from a few years ago, Winkler’s Wager.
Which is the proper analogy? That various religions are:
Blind men describing the same elephant (God): One on the trunk, one on the ears, one on the legs, one on the body...
Sports enthusiasts arguing about what sport is the one good, true, worthy-of-attention-and-devotion sport: “[e.g., American football] is the pinnacle of all sports. The others are praiseworthy, but they fall short in critical areas to varying degrees. [American football] is what you are searching for as you grasp at finding complete purpose in other sports like basketball, soccer, golf, baseball, etc.”
Sports fans rooting for their various, rival teams: “Ours is the one true team (divine creator) to root for (worship)! Devotion to any other is misguidedly shameful at best, an abomination at worst. Those who root for our opponent shall be damned!”
People attempting to be helpful giving you directions to a destination with varying levels of specificness. Standing in Los Angeles you ask, “Where is my watch?”
The first person tells you it is in New York City.
The second person tells you it is in SoHo.
The third person tells you the address of a specific apartment.
The fourth person tells you the drawer in a specific room in the apartment.
.... None of them is exactly correct, and you never do find the watch. You get indications that each might be or might have been somewhat correct.
Attempts by various actors with ulterior motives, some good and some bad, to get you to believe something they may or may not completely and truly believe themselves. For the sincere and good actors, some want companionship, an additional fellow traveler in their consensual hallucination, while others want a beneficial byproduct they believe stems from the sharing and spreading of the belief.
Related: Having long ago rejected supposed “proofs” for the existence of God, I find Scott Alexander’s thoughts on the implications Max Tegmark’s mathematical universe hypothesis to be quite useful. Not to cast stones, but I have to call into question the faith of many believers when they so desperately cling to poorly reasoned arguments to prove God (and always their God). Faith in my estimation includes having faith in that which cannot be proved—namely the existence of a perfect being.
It seems that those who spend so much of their religious energy around building such formidable structures to defend their concept of God against those who deny God may actually be building protections against their own lack of faith.
Also related as well as additional thinking in this area:
and
Podcast: Reopening Muslim Minds - “Mustafa Aykol [discussing] how values often associated with Western Enlightenment ― freedom, reason, tolerance, and an appreciation of science ― had Islamic counterparts.”
and
and
and
and