The Kodachi (Part 5 of 5) -- A Conclusion That Begins
[Note: for Part 4 of this auxiliary series, click here.]
Hey!--where did all that 'true love' stuff go??
It's still around.
I believe God exists, because I believe in myself. And because I believe in her, whom I truly love. Whether or not she believes God exists, I still believe in her.
Admittedly, I knew this principle long before I met her. But still--you might manage to browbeat me somehow into believing I do not exist.
You will never succeed in convincing me that she does not exist!--that she is not a real person; that she does not make her own choices; that I should not treasure those choices, treasure her, for being her and being real.
I believe in God, because I refuse to disbelieve in her. Ever.
Even if she does not believe in God.
The same goes for you, my reader. I am writing this book for you to judge--not for you to knee-jerk react to.
I believe in God, because I refuse to disbelieve in you.
Even if you do not believe in God.
Wait! Am I saying atheists don't truly love people!?!
On the contrary--I am counting on the fact that they do!
I can put it this way: it is because I seriously believe that unbelievers can truly love people, that I believe God exists.
Do you disbelieve in God? Are you not sure whether God exists?
I am willing to accept that you exist. And I am willing to believe in you. Even if we discount the question of true love, I am willing to treat you as a responsibly thinking person. (Which is why I would prefer you didn't think ir-responsibly.)
But being willing to treat you as a real person, has deductive implications for conclusion.
'God exists' is one of those deductive implications.
But wait! Am I saying there are no such things as reactions!?!
On the contrary--I robustly affirm that there are such things as reactions; and I robustly affirm that they contribute strongly to human behavior, including my own.
These are, in fact, very important observations--and they also have important deductive consequences. Which I will cover later.
But the existence of human reactions, even as part of our mental processes, doesn't change the fact of human actions. Nor does it change the deductive consequences of human actions.
There are good reasons to scientifically study the reactive processes of the human mind (including mine). We can learn many useful truths in this way, about us as a species, and about us individually.
But there is a line that must be strenuously held.
And all researchers do in fact hold it, in practice, and in principle--except when they are trying to hold to a principle they would philosophically prefer. And even then they still always hold the line I am holding, in practice.
A researcher must not claim that his own mental processes are intrinsically irresponsible.
The moment he does this, he is claiming his own claims are irresponsible.
No researcher wants to be treated as being intrinsically irresponsible. No researcher considers his own theories as being intrinsically irresponsible.
Therefore, I do not believe any researcher when he implies that human thinking is intrinsically irresponsible.
I think they shouldn't believe those theories of theirs, either.
If a researcher or philosopher wants me to believe his theories about human mental reactions, then I will also believe in human actions--specifically, his.
And, consequently, I will believe in the implications of real human action.
And one deductive implication is: God exists.
...Unless: my argument against atheism also zorches not-atheism.
That would have to be considered next.
(And that catches up to the topic of Chapter 20 in the main SttH text.)
Hey!--where did all that 'true love' stuff go??
It's still around.
I believe God exists, because I believe in myself. And because I believe in her, whom I truly love. Whether or not she believes God exists, I still believe in her.
Admittedly, I knew this principle long before I met her. But still--you might manage to browbeat me somehow into believing I do not exist.
You will never succeed in convincing me that she does not exist!--that she is not a real person; that she does not make her own choices; that I should not treasure those choices, treasure her, for being her and being real.
I believe in God, because I refuse to disbelieve in her. Ever.
Even if she does not believe in God.
The same goes for you, my reader. I am writing this book for you to judge--not for you to knee-jerk react to.
I believe in God, because I refuse to disbelieve in you.
Even if you do not believe in God.
Wait! Am I saying atheists don't truly love people!?!
On the contrary--I am counting on the fact that they do!
I can put it this way: it is because I seriously believe that unbelievers can truly love people, that I believe God exists.
Do you disbelieve in God? Are you not sure whether God exists?
I am willing to accept that you exist. And I am willing to believe in you. Even if we discount the question of true love, I am willing to treat you as a responsibly thinking person. (Which is why I would prefer you didn't think ir-responsibly.)
But being willing to treat you as a real person, has deductive implications for conclusion.
'God exists' is one of those deductive implications.
But wait! Am I saying there are no such things as reactions!?!
On the contrary--I robustly affirm that there are such things as reactions; and I robustly affirm that they contribute strongly to human behavior, including my own.
These are, in fact, very important observations--and they also have important deductive consequences. Which I will cover later.
But the existence of human reactions, even as part of our mental processes, doesn't change the fact of human actions. Nor does it change the deductive consequences of human actions.
There are good reasons to scientifically study the reactive processes of the human mind (including mine). We can learn many useful truths in this way, about us as a species, and about us individually.
But there is a line that must be strenuously held.
And all researchers do in fact hold it, in practice, and in principle--except when they are trying to hold to a principle they would philosophically prefer. And even then they still always hold the line I am holding, in practice.
A researcher must not claim that his own mental processes are intrinsically irresponsible.
The moment he does this, he is claiming his own claims are irresponsible.
No researcher wants to be treated as being intrinsically irresponsible. No researcher considers his own theories as being intrinsically irresponsible.
Therefore, I do not believe any researcher when he implies that human thinking is intrinsically irresponsible.
I think they shouldn't believe those theories of theirs, either.
If a researcher or philosopher wants me to believe his theories about human mental reactions, then I will also believe in human actions--specifically, his.
And, consequently, I will believe in the implications of real human action.
And one deductive implication is: God exists.
...Unless: my argument against atheism also zorches not-atheism.
That would have to be considered next.
(And that catches up to the topic of Chapter 20 in the main SttH text.)
Comments