So how do two people with wildly different world views relate? Well, not well, at least in the subject areas that are not common. So what is left? Well, we are both old and and have various health issues, but even there, I do not go looking, while she searches for problem while healthy.
What am I on about? I received a "Christmas letter" from a cousin, who is somewhat older than I, who I have never met, in fact of those dozen or so Irish cousins, I have only met one a couple of time. But I was struck by how different our world view is from the author of this Christmas letter. The next question is how should I respond.
She has a religious/god/ give thanks view; I am a realist; in religious parlance a heathen, atheist, nihilist. I knew that I was born at the maximum earth population; and choose not to reproduce, as did my sister. We are the end of our fathers (William) line. Henry, her father and mother produced 31 and growing offspring. As I am the end of the line, our genealogy and history is of little interest to me. It does not matter, we are what we are, and the end will come. My youth and family history was so negative, as viewed from my point of view, that I do not care if I associate with many of my family.
I have heard how important family is, but yet all my family experience has so much negatives in it that I long ago just stopped caring much. There is a little curiosity, but little more. I will not tolerate prosthesis by them or anyone. It is easier to just walk away. So how should I handle it all, shallow and polite, or silent walk away with non response.
It is apparent to me that religion is so fake. In our mind we can divide the meme objects, (Dawkins style meme, not internet social media memes) into real world object memes, real world concept memes, grading to fiction memes, and pure fiction memes. These can be considered equivalent to Plato's forms. Kant's divisions of: a priori, a posteriori, synthetic a priori of real, and, of fiction.
The old Buddhist, I do not recall his name right now, speaks of mental objects, those that represent real objects, those that represent real concepts or actions, and those who have no real counterparts.
When we conduct this type of analysis on religion, so much just does not met the tests of reality. If it cannot past the test of reality, it must be held in abeyance or rejected. Religion has no real foundation, just a people with a history of belief, but no evidence. There is little that does not have an alternative explanation that does not require supernatural or god based explanation. Many of the arguments fall by failure of the starting assumptions in the premise. Or by logic failures, like if A and if B, then C, but that is a logic statement, not logic foundation. William Lane Craig does not know the difference, or use this as logic intentionally to fool the people; you pick which.
So which is it William Lane Craig?
It is like the professor with the abortion issue and the Kant's "Categorical Imperative". So should the imperative be that we should never have abortions, or that we should always have the freedom to choose? As soon as we consider equality as part of the foundation ethics, than everything opens up, and ethics become modern. Oh well, in the end we all just die anyway. It is done. Hail All.
