Email of the Day

"You'’re a very talented writer, and your thoughts are appreciated."

So, my first piece of fan mail, what an honor. I know what you'’re thinking: no, it isn't from my mother. But wait, there'’s more!

However, I think you should take time to think about how flawed your religious perceptions may be.

This could be interested. Here'’s a response to my post "“Religion and Philosophy"” by a friend of mine, Brittany Crowley:

Firstly, you addressed your place to question existence and a higher being. You stated, "“I'’m certainly not arrogant enough to assume that I can conceptualize the existence of God." But are you arrogant enough to assume that you can draw conclusions about the effect belief in God has on a person, when you cannot even grasp His existence? Certainly a humble scholar, like yourself, could be inclined to refuse ignorance, and accept the fact that a human mind can only capacitate so much. Faith is an especially abstract human quality, that is experienced somewhere beyond the mind. Egotistical intellectuals, who feel that they can prove everything through the known senses, often reject belief in things that are intangible, like God.

Secondly, you declared, "“I feel that organized religion emanates intolerance by preaching the ideals of universal righteousness."” Pardon the characterization, but, what a liberal statement! The theory of "tolerance"” is one that demands acceptance of others- regardless of one'’s own awareness of how right or wrong others"’ actions may be. By the end of your post, you claimed that you are "“proud to be in the United States"”, a country founded on the ideals of righteousness. Our founding fathers, in their sweat and blood, strived to build a nation that would rise up and do that which is good and right. As a proud American, you would no doubt, agree that the expression of oneÂ’s freedom of speech and freedom of religious orientation do not beget a void of acceptance for others. The goal of righteousness is surely an intrinsic one in, not only Americans, but all humankind. This goal serves as an impetus for strong, national development.

Your sentiments are a bit preemptive (and more than a bit defensive): I make no attempt at an empirical argument "“through the known senses"” against the existence of God, as you allude to in your first paragraph, so don'’t worry. In fact, I readily concede that the, "“human mind can only capacitate so much,"” and therefore God, at least in this forum, is not in question. Pantheism, monotheism, and atheism, these are manifestation of an attitude towards God constructed (presumably) by "“egotistical intellectuals"”; however, none of these arguments are addressed in my post. Rest assured.

Instead, Brittany, I discuss the effects of God as an institution, nearly all of which I believe to be entirely pernicious. You mention the idea "“tolerance"” as a defense of a Universal Code of Righteousness, a code which our Founders, you claim, fought and died for. Your argument'’s an odd one: Righteousness, by definition, is the antithesis of tolerance. In fact, tolerance is the most potent argument against Righteousness, in all respects. Righteousness, as you'’re well aware, indicates that Ethical Codes are wholly objective, and that morality is embedded within that Code, and that Code alone. Tolerance mixed with Righteousness, Brittany, would invariably be insincere: tolerance, at least real tolerance, isn'’t not killing people whom you feel are benighted, hedonistic slobs; instead, it's acknowledging that Truth can be derived in various ways, that others, even those who are different, can be correct in the eyes of God.

Righteousness, within the Institution of God, is not predicated on human happiness, instead it'’s an arbitrary set of rules, at least in my mind. Not only are these rules arbitrary (in relation to happiness) but, perhaps more pertinent to this Liberal Conviction dialectic, they are absolute in intent and objective in consequence. Your argument, seemingly, is self defeating: though our country may (or may not) have been founded on ideals like "freedom of speech"” and the "“celebration of intellect" these are not the ideals espoused by the Institutions of Religion and therefore do not fit within a concept of Universal Righteousness which I'm arguing against. Your talk of, "that which is good and right" undercuts your argument about tolerance, as you implicitly acknowledge that Goodness and Rightness are objective values within a Universal Code. Tolerance, as mentioned above, if anything, is the accepted divergence from a Universal Code of Righteousness, not part of The Code itself. Tolerance does not dethrone The Righteous from an attitude of condescension, unless Righteousness itself no longer exists.