Imagine there is a cult in oh, I don't know, North Dakota. I just threw a mental dart on a map, so don't sue me for disparaging ND's possible reputation as a cult free state. Are you imagining this cult? Good. Now, imagine this cult believes, among other things, that unicorns are real. When asked about their belief, they can provide no concrete reasons for this belief.
In a recent development, a horse with a single horn on its forehead is actually photographed. It is later identified by biologists as an honest-to-goodness new species.
The question is, does this cult deserve any credit for its prediction? Take a moment to answer.
If you answered yes, and you are religious, imagine that this group adheres to a religion antithetical to your own. Does this change your answer?
Now, the final question: What do your answers say about you?
Let me ask the first question in a different context. Imagine that 2500 years ago there is a man who purports to know everything about the sun. He claims no divine inspiration. His idea is that the sun is a ball of burning hydrogen and helium, and it is fueled by what he calls "atomic forces." Is he intelligent?
The point I am trying to make is this. Neither conclusion is valid. "Unicorns exist" is not valid, it is conjecture. "The sun is ball of hot gas" is not valid. The problem that exists, is that everything seems valid in a religious context, unless it isn't your religion.
Recent Comments