(This is a preliminary text, 21 November 2014.)
This text is an elaborated and extended version of http://www.ovemk2.blogspot.dk/2014/11/atheists-support-theism.html.
Religious persons must be able to attribute meaning to their expressions,
i.e. describe what they are talking about, if they want to be regarded as
reasonable. However, religious persons use inter alia their religious
expression “god” as if it has a clear reference to a real object, X, which we
all have knowledge of. Thus, they apply the expression “god” in the same
naturel way as designers use the word “chair”. In fact, it is somewhat
offending to the reader or listener.
It is generally a basal demand, that a description of all expressions must be
done by means of a hyponym, or genus et
differentiam. This includes naturally the expression “god”.
Designers and other people have no problem with describing the word “chair”
in the demanded way, viz. thus: “a chair is a piece of furniture to sit on”.
However, the religious people can describe neither the genus nor the
hyponym when they are to describe the expression “god”. It must here be
mentioned that expressions such as “something” or “being” are not usable
hyponyms, as they tell us nothing.
It must also be pointed out that it is not sufficient to use terms for
experiences or as a hyponym r genus. For when you have experiences, all what
exists are just your experiences. So here, the genus is identical to
“experience” - and nothing else. This is described more closely in the
subsection “Religious explanations” in Treatise
No 5 in these words:
‘Someone may assert to have evidence of the truth of the sentence “God
exists” and express this evidence with the sentence “I have felt God’s
nearness”. In that case, however, the only thing that can be said to be present
or have been present is a feeling of a certain sort, viz. the very feeling
referred to however it might have been, but not an existence of anything else.
For that reason, the sentence cannot be an apt description of the feeling in
question. The experience referred to cannot give meaning to a new concept of a
god either, as the discussed sentence presupposes that the meaning of this putative
concept has been clarified, i.e. to which kind of entity the sign sequence
“god” possibly might refer. The semantic meaning of a sentence simply must be clarified
in order to ex-press anything.’
It must be observes that the atheists’ sentence “There is no god”,
presupposes that in principle this sentence could be true, but that it just happens
not to be the case. This faulty assumption gives religion an appearance of
reasonableness.
In other words, the atheists do not understand the religious peoples'
fault, but commit it themselves.
Consequences.
The so-called cultural Christians provide a breeding ground to the original
Christianity (the evangelical Lutheran National Church). Both parts provide a
breeding ground to related religions, i.e. the Pentecostalism, etc.
Because of the common core of the religions, which consists in accept of
semantic senseless expressions, there is no clear borderline between the
different religious layers and groups, only gradually different characteristics.
It follows from the above remarks that neither the persons that call themselves
“atheists”, has understood this. Thus, all religious persons make up a coherent
community together with those that call themselves “atheists” or “agnostics”.
According to the cultural Christians, Christianity – and religion overall –
is something sensible; and as soon as a person has accepted this, he can go a
step further to a worse religion and thus legitimate yet more misery in the
shape of condemnation that results in outrageous acts: harassment of others,
humiliation, violence and homicide
Possibly the religious aggressions may be a consequence of their succumbing
to some ideas of something they cannot explain, not only because these is not
true, but also because they have a diffuse relation to semantic senseless
expressions.
Therefore, we ought to set our own house in order by means of increased enlightenment,
before we send soldiers into fight with religious extremists, or at least in parallel
with this. This can, by our help, spread like wildfire.
People need a greater insight into which statements are sensible and which
are linguistically senseless, such as it is shortly expounded above. We must
spread an understanding of the necessity of being able to justify ones
viewpoints. A presentation of a justification pressuposs that one can explain
the used expressions. Otherwise, we have just persons on the one side that
approve of something and others on the other side that condemns the same thing.
Left is only the sword.
Religion builds upon a basis of these lacking considerations. However, how
shall we spread an understanding of this even in at otherwise enlightened
country? For even the least consideration would lead to the understanding that
the religious expression are linguistically senseless. The problem is that many
people cannot realize these evident truths by themselves, or that they do not
want to do that because it may disturb their imaginations.
Thus, it is not primarily so that lacking reflection and knowledge is caused by religion, but that these two are
the source of religion. However, when
religion finally has gained a free rein, it legitimate an even greater lack of reflection.
