Interpretation of Texts (General)

by dhw, Tuesday, October 05, 2010, 13:39 (4971 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

MATT: The second reason, and more personal of the two, is that despite what science says, I know there is something more. Ever since I was small I have known it more surely than anything else in my life. It has nothing to do with religion, because believe it or not, I abhor religion. However, the part of me that tells me what my eyes see, my ears hear, my tongue tastes, and my fingers feel, also tells me that it is aware of something that can not be defined by materialism, and the part of me that is tremendously aware of how little I know continues to push me to learn more so that one day I might understand it. [...] 
If that makes me sound like a nut, then so be it. At the end of my path, I am the only one that can judge whether it was all worth it.-Thank you for your honest and stimulating replies. I'll summarize my response to the other sections of your post concerning a) the various laws, b) the genealogy of Christ and c) the talents of the ancients:
 
a)	In all honesty, I can't summon up much enthusiasm over whose laws are whose; my main concern is the biblical picture of God as a fearsome disciplinarian whose sense of justice appals me. A subjective view, of course, and that's why I'm so interested in your personal criteria for right and wrong (my post of 30 September).-b)	If the Gnostic Gospels pooh-pooh the concept of a virgin birth, good for them. Both genealogies end (Matthew) or begin (Luke) with Joseph as Jesus' father, so I don't see how it can be argued that one of them is Mary's.
 
c)	I agree with you that the ancients were brilliant. The collection of biblical books alone is an astonishing achievement, as are many of the ancient buildings and artefacts. Out of curiosity I googled "prehistoric airplanes" and found a number of interesting sites which also cover some of the mysterious discoveries you've referred to. I don't know how all this links up with the question of God's existence, but it certainly suggests that we should be wary of accepting current views of human history. It only needs one sensational discovery to turn received wisdom on its head. 
. 
Your second reason does not make you sound at all like a nut, but the "something more" for me is not "despite what science says". In fairness to science, it says nothing. Only scientists say. Some do indeed talk as if they knew all about the things that matter most to us as individuals: consciousness, love, creativity, memory, imagination etc., but they haven't a clue, and I think many of them ... even Dawkins ... acknowledge that (see my post under Consciousness). The atheistic ones simply have their quasi-religious faith that they will one day be able to tell us how the universe, life and consciousness originated. I share your scepticism towards materialism, and also towards the established religions (I suppose that's why I've kept badgering you about your devotion to the Bible). If I actually believed in God, it would have to be my own concept of him, but that would be hugely influenced by the randomness of joy and pain in the world I see around me. As I've already mentioned, the simplest explanation for that would be the deist God or no God at all.-The "push to learn more" is what binds all of us on this forum. Maybe we're all nutcases together!