Olaf Magnusson accepts the immediate objects of his thoughts:
"...as the aspect of the Divine which was set before him tonight."
-CHAPTER FOUR, p. 250.
The announcement that he is going to:
"...take leadership of the Terran Empire..."
-CHAPTER FIVE, p. 261 -
- ends with:
"'Stand by. The Divine, in whatever form It manifests Itself to you, is with us.'"
-ibid.
A very carefully worded statement that can provide a basis for any response whatsoever to the announcement!
A long time ago, I was impressed with the phrase, "the Divine Ground," in Aldous Huxley's The Perennial Philosophy because I wanted to move into mysticism while remaining monotheist. However, "Ground," like "It," is an impersonal term.
Today, I met with another guy called Paul who practices meditation taught by Elan Vital, the former Divine Light Mission, reads Christian mystics and attends the Church of England. Again, a light is not a person although I have just texted Paul to ask whether "Divine Light" implies a personal God.
If I were in the Patrician System to hear that announcement, then I would accept the statement that the Divine - in some sense! - is with us but I would also be wondering how to respond to Magnusson's attempted coup and, of course, I would not yet know what was really behind it. Poul Anderson is always full of surprises.
11 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
A "Divine Light" cannot logically be literally "divine" if it was not God or a "god."
Magnusson was carefully glossing over how he was preparing to unlawfully attempt seizing control of the Empire. (Glaring at him)
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But it could be what people had experienced and deified.
Paul's answer: "No."
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Then we agree about that "Divine Light."
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I still see the ultimate reality as not a person.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I disagree and find anti-theistic arguments totally unconvincing.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I know you disagree.
What is needed is convincing pro-theistic arguments, not anti-theistic.
No one is obliged to prove a negative proposition. Do you understand this basic logical point?
I do not think that there is a China tea service in orbit 50 miles beyond Pluto but I am not obliged to prove that there is not.
I do not believe that there are hidden underground cities on Mars but I am not obliged to prove that there are not.
And so on.
Paul.
Sean,
If you start by assuming theism, then defy sceptics to disprove it, then you are starting, logically, in the wrong place. YOU must back up YOUR position.
I am now convinced after all this time that that illogical stance is your position.
My aim was to talk about an experience described as "light" etc, not about a dogmatic stance.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I still find dogmatic atheists unconvincing and illogical, as John Wright has argued at his blog.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Illogical?
But you still do not understand that atheists do not have to be dogmatic. It is those who assert a positive proposition, in this case theists, who must prove their case.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And you don't seem to understand that some atheists are dogmatic--who do assert a similar proposition about atheism.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I do not deny that some atheists are dogmatic! That is not the point that I am making. You clearly do not understand that, when a positive proposition is asserted, e.g.:
there is life on Mars;
God exists;
etc -
- the onus of proof is on the person or persons asserting the proposition, not on anyone who has not yet accepted the proposition. You cannot just assert that there is life on Mars, then immediately fall back on defying others to disprove it!
Theists must prove their case. Those who do not yet accept theism should not just be labelled as "atheists" and challenged to prove atheism. They are under no obligation to prove it.
I have been making this logical distinction about the onus of proof for a very long time. You not only do not reply to this point but seem not to have read it. Your only reply is that some atheists are dogmatic. I fully agree that some atheists are dogmatic and that they should not be. Now can we address the issue of the onus of proof.
Paul.
Post a Comment