The Tao that can be named is not the Tao

No, I am not about to promote Taoism. However, I am going to use it to make a point. Naturalism was brought up. So, I thought it an important subject to address.
There are many arguments for and against naturalism. I don’t think it would come as any surprise that I hold a naturalist view of the world. This is not to say that I am exclusive. I am inclusive, but cautiously so. If this is a confusing statement, I will assume that you may not have read much on the apologetics’s arguments against naturalism. This particular one addresses Stroud’s proposed dilemma to naturalism. I personally believe that most arguments against naturalism are themselves problematic and involve many misstatements about what naturalism is at it’s core. Stroud, however, does pose a good question. I understand and accept that everything, to the best of our understanding, comes about by natural processes. What we cannot know, is what started the natural processes, if anything. So one could argue that natural processes had a supernatural beginning. But what does that mean? We don’t know. Nor do I believe we can know, at least not yet. The caution in this tale is that it leaves the door open for people to fill this gap with invented supernatural beings. This gap is exploited and it is falsely assumed that because this gap “might” be explained by the supernatural, then we must logically conclude that it is supernatural. This approach, in my opinion, is intellectually dishonest. However, for the arguments sake, let’s assume that it is supernatural. I would argue that the god that can be known is not god. A god that could create a vast universe such as this couldn’t possibly be understood on a level of human understanding. Nor do I believe it would require anything from humans, much less require or desire belief. How like humans to reduce something of that magnitude, to suit their own pettiness.


0 comments on “The Tao that can be named is not the TaoAdd yours →

Leave a Reply