Double Reverse Dogging the Dogma
This is fun …
I just got done reading a Medium Members-only story about the illogic of Christians calling atheism a “religion,” of sorts.
The gist of the story is that atheism is merely attenuating a lack of belief-period, not a lack of belief in which to rest someone’s faith. Or at least that’s what I got from it.
Not Preaching
But don’t we all have “faith” in something, whatever it is?
I’ve long shied away, or pulled back, from trying to convince anyone of the existence of One Triune God. If they ask, I can only tell them what I believe; not what to believe.
I am currently concerned about my own soul, not anyone else’s — unless they ask or inquire. If they ask, I will put my own beliefs into “activate” mode, and not just the basis for my beliefs, but what I’ve learned over the transom that solidifies those beliefs in real time.
If you don’t want to know what I believe, please don’t ask me — you may have to sit still a few half-hour periods at a time for at least a week.
That said, I realized near the end of the article that the author made a point that struck me as the psychological clinical and forensic definition of ‘circular reasoning’. It’s not a specific DSM-V disorder diagnosis, just a normal psychological way of explaining the different types of logic and fallacies that the human mind uses to make sense of itself.
Gaslight, Red Light, Neon Light, Spotlight
To take a long strand and make it short, I told them here’s what I see in a nutshell: With your logic, I see that a person may make a societal faux pas and when someone attempts to correct them on that faux pas, the person who made the slip responds with another faux pas to cover the first faux pas, and then waits to see if the person who corrected the first faux pas is going to come up with another faux pas to cover their faux pas, and on and on, et al, ad nauseum.
There are people who would try to simplify this psychological angst with the word “gaslighting,” but technically, simple gaslighting [i.e., Jedi Mind-tricks] don’t do this type of fallacy-driven argument justice.
In other words, “we can do this all day.”
You can double dog reverse dog me until the New Moon arises in the next Millennium and I can come up with some kind of logic to cover your logic because “it’s a good time to be logical because it requires logic.”
Okay, so what is the point here?
I’m A Believer, Not A Religionista
I’m an old school fan of the original Frasier television series starring Kelsey Grammer (pre-Netflix, young hearts).
My all-time favorite episode was watching Frasier go head2head with his college mentor from Harvard by the name of “Dr. William Tewksbury.”
By the time the two of them got done going back and forth on the psychological tilt-a-whirl, Frasier came up with the only answer he could. The one where he finally gets off the mental roller coaster that is called “My Life” and admits his old mentor was right from the start. “Great writing, Team Frasier!”
No spoilers here. If you don’t know, you’ll have to watch it yourself.
However, as a Woman of God, whatever it means to me, I am well aware of the merry-go-round that “non-believers” try to spin with their “Prove God exists” theologies.
Here is where the cyclical reasoning abruptly ends: I can’t prove it. Nor do I need to.
God has to prove Himself, and ultimately — and I’ve seen this time and again in my own life — He Will.
###
