Uhm...just a couple quick comments:<quoted text> I did go to the theater to see the movie Wolverine yesterday. It was my day off and i was in the area. The movie took place in Japan. Two female actors and the Wolverine against the bad guys. So you should go see that movie. Actually i didn't think it was all that great but it was fun. I found a book for you on line. Won't cost you a thing except your time.
1 Japanese Zen Buddhists don't believe God is all, so that book misrepresents them. You have to invoke a lot of theology to reach that point and, as I'm sure you already know, theology isn't a Buddhist way of thinking.
2 You may disagree, but when Christians talk of faith they mean something more than "I have faith in the doctor." Your faith in God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit is deeply meaningful to you and moves you in ways that "I'm sure this pill will work, that doctor wears a white suit!" cannot convey. So I have some issues equating the "faith" atheists have to the "faith" Christians have.
I mean, isn't it derogatory to you? Don't you think your faith conveys more than what that book suggests is mine?
3 The book claims that reality is knowable, that objective truth exists and it is found through religion. I disagree on all points.
4 I do agree with him that some (my word, not his) "truth" (his word, not mine) exists regardless of our desires. His conclusion, that Christianity is the one, true religion and that you have to respect other's religious beliefs anyways, is thoughtless, self serving and without merit. His argument here is poor - and grossly oversimplified.
4a. This, in particular, is a ridiculous error in logic:
"truth exists, and it is absolute and undeniable. To say truth cannot be known is self-defeating because that very statement claims to be a known, absolute truth." pp. 62, top
It's circular logic and relying on assumptions and claims he made that he didn't support and are false. If anything, all science has demonstrated that "truth" is relative to the observer - quite a long time ago. So he's using outdated and oversimplified philosophy here to support a theological argument.
5 I apologize, I sort of gave up at this point. I find this book quite hard to read - it's clearly aimed at the religions and written in a sort of sermon way.
6. However, I'll keep it. If you wish to discuss any particular paragraph or chapter, bring it up and you and I can banter about it.
Thank you for linking it.