I an in over my head with a theist. He has a masters in theology. ( Never understood why bother to study theology when the most average person will understand it with no work on being dead.)
I responded to an email. Lots of God, America, guns, love it or leave it type.
On a belief in a god or gods I prefer the thinking of Carl Sagan,
Bertrand Russell, Stephen Jay Gould and David Hume.
All revealed religions are ludicrous.
My theist response:
> Fortunately, you live in America, where the thinking of those
> individuals is tolerated, as is your reading of their books, as well
> as my reading of them. Personally, I am fortunate to have met and
> spoken with Raymond E. Brown, have read his books, and ascribe to his
> thoughts regarding religion. I have also read John Tully Carmody,
> Patrick Grant, Jan Lambrecht, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Hans Küng, A. N.
> Wilson, Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Gustavo Gutiérrez, Luke Timothy
> Johnson, David J. Harrington, not to mention the Gospels. I have tried
> not to steep myself along one line of thought (philosophy?).
> One-dimensionalism is so restrictive. Like traveling down a highway at
> full speed, looking only straight ahead, without being able to stop
> and smell the roses.
> In your readings of Sagan, perhaps you ran across writings by Carl's
> colleague, Harvard astrophysicist & former chair of the history of
> science dept., Owen Gingerich along with Cambridge theoretical
> physicist & Anglican priest, John Polkinghorne, who rationally
> reaffirm the hope of Christianity?
> Incidentally, Russell seemed to have a bit of difficulty both job-wise
> and in his relationships with his three wives. Not that that would
> reflect on his thinking or reputation as a philosopher. As a professor
> at Trinity College, wasn't he discharged for his teachings on
> morality? Not really the kind of person I'd model my life after, I think.
> To say that Sagan thought all religion ludicrous is inaccurate. My
> summarization of Sagan, religion-wise, is that he took no particular
> stand either way, but went out of his way to discredit myth and
> Hume's major goal in his thinking, from my perspective, was to
> separate religion from philosophy, and thus be able to pursue "pure"
> philosophy with no inferrential persuasions from the discipline of
> religion. Of course the political times and locales dictated that
> religion be treated very cautiously, which may have unintentionally
> had an impact on Hume's writings, religion-wise, don't ya think?
> Regarding Gould, I enjoyed his rather free-wheeling evolutionary
> theories, but think perhaps he is better known for his works in the
> field of paleontology.
> Actually, I find none of the sources you name consider religion
> "ludicrous." But then, you perhaps read (or studied?) them with a
> different expectation. If you could direct me to the specific works
> from which you drew your conclusion, I'd like to read them.
Now the statement “All revealed religions are ludicrous.” is my thinking on the subject of religion.
Would there be some that could point to specific points that are laughable in revealed religion?