Question of The Week
It is clearly evident when looking at the traditions of many peoples, religion is an important aspect of this cultural history. When looking at a geographical map of the world which indicates the distribution of religions, it is apparent that people generally adopt the religious ideals of their society and more coherently, that of their parents. Likewise, we are all subject to our personal histories. More so, all religious people make absolute truth claims about salvation and affirm the absolute sanctity of their religious doctrines over all others. A person of Muslim faith, who declares supreme truth concerning conceptions of divine ultimacy, could have just as easily been born into a family and a society which affirms the infallibility of a very different religious faith, such as Christianity. How can one make absolute truth claims about their religious convictions, when it was by pure chance that they were born into a society that affirms the religion in which they believe?
1 comments:
make up the question to predetermine the answer already assumed. project those assumptions onto the universe as it's fundamentals. deny culture & tradition (the democracy of the dead) to find out some enduring non-reducible, chaos. embrace limbo and the stasis of background radiation. all is pure chance, the last remaining absolute allowed by relativists. Meaningless, cries the preacher, all is meaningless. No truth claims have absolute merit. Love is one sack of chemicals yearning to mix with another to achieve undifferentiated meaninglessness. What, does that mean something? still these are attempts to exert control by the non-controller.
Is it possible that an (hypothetical) absolute is just slightly more powerful than a finitude, such that it is the absolute that stakes the claim, and the finitude just tries vainly to echo it, resulting in a clatter and clamor of the multitude of echoes?
Post a Comment