I've just been reading the AA book - the Big Book. There is a chapter in there which I would like to share with others.
Chapter 4: We Agnostics
It discusses the reasons why there is a power beyond ourselves. They are so simple, logical, self-evident.
Enjoy
5 comments:
The arguments used equally disprove as they do prove a case for the existance of something beyond ourselves.
When making these arguments many attempt to speak as if they were speaking anothers words. That these werent their beliefs but someone elses, something else. When the writer accuses aethiests and agnostics of being so vain as to believe themselves to be the be all and end all of knowledge the question is begging to be asked: how can the writer say this without believing themselves (or atleast their belief in a greater power; note, still their thoughts and knowledge) to be right. Rather vain of them isn't it?
It claims because people have faith, trust, love, compassion and worship in our lives then we must believe in a power greater then humanity that exists on a spiritual level. One could mount an equally strong argument that its all chemical. The examples of faith, love and compassion given are self described human experiences. Love of another person, kindness towards others, faith in oneself or in others. It just as easily proves that the greatest power is humans themselves.
The entire piece reads like rishi making a 'doomed if you do, doomed if you dont' argument.
"if you liked to fuck dead babies and you saw a dead baby would you fuck it?"
the answer is yes because the answer has already been assigned to you in the question.
"if all alcoholics cant get past their illness without discovering the existance of a greater power does a great power exist?"
the funny thing is even if you agree about the benefits of finding spirituality the answer can still be
"no, a greater power does not exist, only a great capacity to believe in one."
Despite myself alot of the time i do believe in a greater power, but i dont believe in this argument. I mean, the writer denounces logic and attacks its overall ability to lead you, yet then goes on to 'logically' prove his/her argument.
Also i dont like people who write Him or Her but thats just me being nitpickity.
What can I say? The arguments are perfectly logical to me and to many other believers, but you cannot argue such things to someone who does not believe becasue that's simply how the human mind works. Any retort I could make to your argument or any you make to theirs/mine could easily be disproved from an intellectual standpoint, as we all well know. The only argument spirituality can have is experiential, and that cannot be proven to someone who hasn't experienced it. So is it then more vain to honestly acknowledge you don't necessarily know everything, or to say that you know better than all of the great minds throughout history that have contemplated whether there is a power beyond ourselves or not? But I took that too far. That's not what you were saying. 'Proofs' come to my mind that cannot be proven...Like, simply look at everyone throughout history. The vast majority has believed in a power higher than themselves; many many people have had spiritual experiences that are identical to those of others who had never heard of spiritual experiences before; almost all great minds throughout history have believed in some Thing, for example the hero of many a steadfast materialist, Einstein. And if you amass all the evidence throughout time, all the arguments for and all those against, those against have huge holes, whereas those for carry huge experiential weight. But then one could argue that these are things simply built into our chemical make up and prove nothing...
Any other intellectualising past the point of acknowledgment just gets all tangled up. I have read plenty of arguments like these that I used to scoff at and think could easily be disproved, but now make complete, logical sense. Speaking of logical, he was not denouncing all logic. The writer sees that it can be a valid tool. But only a tool, not the be all and end all.
In conclusion, I too am tangled up in a knot trying to discuss this, hehe.
I didn't know you believed in a greater power...And I'm very surprised you still check my blog! Bye bye
How about we agree the argument should state that there is no concrete evidence for or against the point and that all the argument should establish is that there is nothing wrong with searching for a greater power or a form of spirituality and to speak against such attempts is useless and wrong. At the moment it aims to prove there is, while all arguments against can hold equal weight. The example of experience can be used identically as the example cited in the piece of sight and how many times what we see is not the true occurence. Equally one could argue what we feel is rarely what is actually happening.
Either way, of course i still read your blog, what kind of friend do you take me for :(
I suppose that will have to do for now. And you're a lovely friend. I just meant that since I hadn't posted for ages people wouldn't check anymore. And I was thinking about doing away with it altogether, and so maybe you intuited that and never looked...who knows! Anyway, see you soon!
The problem with proving any intangible being is exactly that: it cannot be proven. The quick arguement would say that God is not something to be proven for or against, but something to have faith (or lack thereof) in. This chapter of the AA book seems to be designed to make the reader reconsider their spiritual standpoint, but it cannot offer any proof. Just like we cannot say if aliens exist or not with any certainty (look up the Drake Equation) we cannot prove the existence of a diety by some magic formula. Nay, the only way to prove the existence or lack thereof of a god is in your own heart, own mind, through your own eyes and with your own hands. To expect to explain your faith to someone and have them turn about-face and come to your way of thinking is ludicrous. Best just to understand each other's opinions and views.
The scary part? Live with or around someone long enough and eventually they'll have very similar faiths. Funny how no-one wants to admit that.
Post a Comment