I'm certainly not here to defend his line of reasoning, but I feel certain that he personally would say that the Bible teaches that we won't always be able to understand God's reasons for doing things. And yes, I'm aware that this allows someone to sweep pretty much any objection under the table, regardless of evidence.
Problem with that is that itís an assumption. No more, no less.
Iíve once heard someone define agnostics as people who donít commit to organized religion because they feel that god simply canít be explained in terms and detail that many faiths do.
I can tell you that is a generalization and doesnít cover it across the board. I for one donít believe something is automatically woogly-woogly mumbo-jumbo just because the answer appears unattainable.
I believe everything can be explained with enough information, even god. I donít subscribe to any religions because logic tells you they canít be completely right, since theyíre all pretty much in mutual disagreement. For any one of them to assume they have the answers, and many of them do, is the height of arrogance.
Even more so, Iím not for sale. I donít fall in line and follow a code and fly someoneís flag because they believe they know better than me. For all they know, I know best for me, and experience has shown me I often do.
It's only a vicious circle if your goal in life is to try to go to people and prove to them that their religion is wrong. Otherwise, people just believe what they believe, and vive la difference. It doesn't seem any different than American Indian tribes or Hindu gurus having beliefs that you might not agree with, except that Indian tribes and gurus are generally exoticized and cool, and Christian conservatives are too close to home.
In any case, if that is your goal in life, I have to say that it seems a bit unkind, not to mention quixotic.
No, I wouldnít say thatís my Ďgoal in lifeí but I will say if you want to discuss your religion and want to do it without extreme scrutiny and debate, then itís for the best that you do it without me present.
Give me your temple of beliefs and Iíll rip it down and deconstruct it block for block, and Iíll do it without fear of offending what you believe.
I wonít do that out of malice or to be an instigator, or anything so basic and petty. If your faith is founded on anything solid at all, it should be able to stand up to aggressive debate. If you as representative of your faith canít debate it without being offended, then youíre ill-suited to defend it in the first place.
This being said, Iíve been accused of being overly aggressive in this forum to the point of rudeness. No one here really understands my motives on this, not a single one of them that called me out on it.
What many religionists have in debate is their Ďsafe cornerí. Thatís what incenses me in debate more than anything. Playing the Ďoffended cardí is done as easily and as flagrantly as calling the race card these days, and in debate, itís a safety corner I wonít allow anyone to have.
Any my rationale is very simple and clear on this: Science doesnít get a Ďsafety zoneí against the opposition, so nor should religion. Itís bad behavior on the part of some religionists, and for those of us that are willing to critically debate, Iíll snatch your safety cards away. Science and religion should be able to debate on an even keel, otherwise they arenít
on an even keel.