Right. There is a way to understand all of these things [including God and religion] and the folks around you [being reasonable] understand them as you do.
They know that there is a God and that morality is objective.
I’m the only one who just doesn’t “get it”.
That seems to be your argument.
What “on earth” am I missing here? Am I actually meant to take this seriously? That there are not companies that manufacture tequila, for example. That someone who has never seen a bottle of tequila cannot be take there and shown, say, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of bottles of teqila?
There’s got to be some crucial inference of his that I am overlooking.
You are missing a couple of points.
- We are discussing the existence of tequila … not bottles that are marked ‘Tequila’. What’s in those bottles? You have taste it to make sure that it is tequila and not something else.
Tequila:
Tequila is a regional specific name for a distilled beverage made from the blue agave plant, primarily in the area surrounding the city of Tequila, 65 km northwest of Guadalajara, and in the highlands of the central western Mexican state of Jalisco.
Now, out in the world that we live in, does tequila exist? You know, objectively? And, if John takes a swig from a bottle, is it possible to determine if it was tequila that he drank. Objectively, for example?
God:
1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
Now, out in the world that we live in, does God exist? You know, objectively? And, if John attends a religious service in a Jewish synagogue, is it possible to determine if the congregation worships and adores the God? Objectively, for example?
That is the distinction that I make. I’m still in the dark regarding the one that you make.
- We are discussing a context where tequila is not readily available in the local liquor store. We are in a place where it is not available. Someone who has tasted tequila is trying to convince someone who has not tasted tequila, that tequila exists.
Come on, what does this really have to do with establishing that tequila does in fact exist in a world where tequila does in fact exist?
How is it really the same thing as someone who is a Jew, trying to convince someone who is a Catholic or a Protestant or a Moslem or a Hindu or a Shinto or a Sikh or a Baha’i or a Buddhist etc., that they [and they alone] believe in the one true Creator?
In fact the one thing they all share in common is that they have no capacity [that I have ever come across] to move beyond faith and to demonstrate the actual existence of their God. Not beyond the circularity derived from arguing that God must exists because the Scriptures say so and that the Scriptures must be true because it is the word of God.
Sure, there is the “concept” of “demonstrating” something. And then there is the actual empirical evidence and proof that revolves around the fact of demonstrating something.
Your focus on ‘demonstrating’ is a dead-end.
Why? Because when we get to the end of any particular religious narrative there is still nothing there but the narrative itself.
And that’s your dead-end, not mine.
After all, my own narrative ends with “I” falling over into the abyss for all eternity.
And, thus, in my opinion, your narrative is bascially just a soothing psychological contraption that allows you to convince yourself that this is not true at all.
It is comforting and consoling in a way that my own grim conjectures can never be.
So, okay, in that really, really crucial respect, you win. Hell, I’ve never denied that.