Don't read this if you don't want to know. . .
Ryan Sutter quite evidently fails to use Reason on his 'Ryan sutter: religion, reason, science, etc...' blog
Here is my response to his dismissive comments -
Hi Ryan,
You said -
:Hmmm... it is admittedly rather humorous,
How so?
:but I am uncertain just exactly what it is intended to prove.
The revelation itself and the "Eye of God" symbolism manifested during total solar eclipses is intended to remind people that God is totally aware of what is going on in the world.
:Revelation is, by it's very nature, limited to being a first-hand communication.
True. . . however this revelation "by it's very nature" can be experienced as a "sign-language" communication from God by many other people. In fact my subsequent researches clearly indicate that various ancient cultures, including but by no means limited to. . . the ancient Egyptians, Aztecs, Mayans and Nazcas etc. responded to the total solar eclipse "Eye of God" and other eclipse symbolism in their religious beliefs and practices.
:As soon as somebody else is informed it is no longer revelation but hearsay.
True if you simply mean "Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor." False if you are implying that my "hearsay" is untruthful and unreliable etc. as the word "hearsay" is very often if not most commonly understood. . .
:Your claim of divine revelation is perhaps valid for you, but cannot logically function as anything more than that,
It most certainly can logically function as considerably more than that. . . If my claimed revelation is indeed a genuine (i.e. valid) revelation of God then it logically functions that it is a valid revelation of God for every other human being too. Other people may choose to ignore it, dismiss it, or even attempt to discredit it, deny it and suppress it etc. etc. however if this, or any indeed any other revelation of God, is in fact "valid" then it is valid for all other human beings.
:no matter what amazing coincidence you seem to think is present in the eclipse/eye thing.
Actually modern astronomers consider it to be an "amazing coincidence" that total solar eclipses occur at all. . . The "eclipse/eye thing" (as you put it) is thus an even more amazing "coincidence" than that. BTW at least one modern astronomer has, at least figuratively. . . described a total solar as "The Eye of God". . .
:Maybe God told you something, maybe you're insane, there is no way for me to tell the difference so it cannot prove anything.
Partly true, partly false. . . Some say that a half truth is a whole lie. There are in fact various ways of being able to "tell the difference" as you put it and thus "prove" something. You may not be qualified to do so yourself but other people most certainly can. For starters qualified psychologists can determine whether or not I am insane. If psychologists determine that I am not insane, then what? Admittedly that does not, in and of itself, automatically validate my claimed revelation of God but it most certainly increases my credibility and thus the probability that God did in fact communicate something to me. N'est-ce pas?
In fact, precisely because some intolerant and abusive UUs have labeled me as psychotic or otherwise insane I have informally met with and have even been formally examined by a number of competent psychiatrists who have found that not only am I not psychotic but, to the best of their ability to so determine, I am not otherwise insane. In fact the respected Montreal psychiatrist who examined me on three separate occasions as a direct result of my being labeled "psychotic" by a certain unmentionable UU minister described me as being "perfectly sane". . . Now what?
You specifically said -
The first person of any faith to offer any sort of evidence that their god is true that can withstand critical scrutiny will have my full attention and interest.
I have presented you with some rather compelling evidence that my revelation of God just may well be true. In response you have even said, "Maybe God told you something." Indeed maybe God did communicate something of considerable significance. My claimed revelation of God can in fact withstand considerable critical scrutiny. Certainly my sanity has already withstood some critical scrutiny by qualified mental health professionals. . . To you and other UUs I say bring on the rest of the "critical scrutiny". I have been demanding a genuinely free and responsible investigation of my revelation for years now. . .
I look forward to your own and indeed other Unitarian Universalists' "full attention and interest" now and in the future. . .
Sincerely,
Robin Edgar
Here is my response to his dismissive comments -
Hi Ryan,
You said -
:Hmmm... it is admittedly rather humorous,
How so?
:but I am uncertain just exactly what it is intended to prove.
The revelation itself and the "Eye of God" symbolism manifested during total solar eclipses is intended to remind people that God is totally aware of what is going on in the world.
:Revelation is, by it's very nature, limited to being a first-hand communication.
True. . . however this revelation "by it's very nature" can be experienced as a "sign-language" communication from God by many other people. In fact my subsequent researches clearly indicate that various ancient cultures, including but by no means limited to. . . the ancient Egyptians, Aztecs, Mayans and Nazcas etc. responded to the total solar eclipse "Eye of God" and other eclipse symbolism in their religious beliefs and practices.
:As soon as somebody else is informed it is no longer revelation but hearsay.
True if you simply mean "Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor." False if you are implying that my "hearsay" is untruthful and unreliable etc. as the word "hearsay" is very often if not most commonly understood. . .
:Your claim of divine revelation is perhaps valid for you, but cannot logically function as anything more than that,
It most certainly can logically function as considerably more than that. . . If my claimed revelation is indeed a genuine (i.e. valid) revelation of God then it logically functions that it is a valid revelation of God for every other human being too. Other people may choose to ignore it, dismiss it, or even attempt to discredit it, deny it and suppress it etc. etc. however if this, or any indeed any other revelation of God, is in fact "valid" then it is valid for all other human beings.
:no matter what amazing coincidence you seem to think is present in the eclipse/eye thing.
Actually modern astronomers consider it to be an "amazing coincidence" that total solar eclipses occur at all. . . The "eclipse/eye thing" (as you put it) is thus an even more amazing "coincidence" than that. BTW at least one modern astronomer has, at least figuratively. . . described a total solar as "The Eye of God". . .
:Maybe God told you something, maybe you're insane, there is no way for me to tell the difference so it cannot prove anything.
Partly true, partly false. . . Some say that a half truth is a whole lie. There are in fact various ways of being able to "tell the difference" as you put it and thus "prove" something. You may not be qualified to do so yourself but other people most certainly can. For starters qualified psychologists can determine whether or not I am insane. If psychologists determine that I am not insane, then what? Admittedly that does not, in and of itself, automatically validate my claimed revelation of God but it most certainly increases my credibility and thus the probability that God did in fact communicate something to me. N'est-ce pas?
In fact, precisely because some intolerant and abusive UUs have labeled me as psychotic or otherwise insane I have informally met with and have even been formally examined by a number of competent psychiatrists who have found that not only am I not psychotic but, to the best of their ability to so determine, I am not otherwise insane. In fact the respected Montreal psychiatrist who examined me on three separate occasions as a direct result of my being labeled "psychotic" by a certain unmentionable UU minister described me as being "perfectly sane". . . Now what?
You specifically said -
The first person of any faith to offer any sort of evidence that their god is true that can withstand critical scrutiny will have my full attention and interest.
I have presented you with some rather compelling evidence that my revelation of God just may well be true. In response you have even said, "Maybe God told you something." Indeed maybe God did communicate something of considerable significance. My claimed revelation of God can in fact withstand considerable critical scrutiny. Certainly my sanity has already withstood some critical scrutiny by qualified mental health professionals. . . To you and other UUs I say bring on the rest of the "critical scrutiny". I have been demanding a genuinely free and responsible investigation of my revelation for years now. . .
I look forward to your own and indeed other Unitarian Universalists' "full attention and interest" now and in the future. . .
Sincerely,
Robin Edgar
Comments