Well, maybe, but you’re making a boatload of unjustified assumptions there.
First, given that evidence is how we determine that things are true, why would anyone want to accept something as true without evidence (especially as a means of beginning the process of inducing subjective feelings that tell us nothing about the world outside of our heads)?
I wouldn’t qualify what I am talking about here in the same terms as what you would use to evaluate material things. If you wondered if someone close to you loved you, and you wanted evidence for it either way, even the evidence you would hope to find is based on presuppositions and preconceptions of what love is, an immaterial concept that can manifest itself in material things. So I’d say having someone prove to you that they love you is pointless, because there is no way in which proof can be provided in this instance that would satisfy proving things in terms of the material world. It is based entirely on a relational connection which I believe is very similar to God.
And as to why anyone would *want" to accept something as true without evidence, well that’s the point, we wouldn’t. One of the central themes of the gospel is rising above the insecurity associated with human nature, where we demand evidence because we are afraid to go down a road that is based on falsehood.
Second, how do you know that there is a such a thing as “living according to what we were supposed to be”? Supposed by whom?
Third, the notion that humans have “moral deficiencies” suggests that there’s some objective moral code that we all have to live up to: how did you come to that conclusion without evidence?
Once again, you are hoping to find evidence in the same vein as you would look for evidence in systems such as the scientific method, you are trying to impose a materialist view of acquiring knowledge on things that are inherently immaterial. You can’t see a universal moral code, you can’t feel it, you can’t smell it, touch it, or taste it. I would argue that it is something detected by our reason, and perfected in divine clarification.
Fourth, you assume that pleasure, for its own sake, is “empty,” but that requires the assumption that something else is “full” and that you have some external criteria for judging “fullness” – how did you arrive at this conclusion without evidence?
I didn’t say quite this, I said “empty pleasure” which I would define as pleasure derived from something that has a negative moral character to it. A father getting pleasure from murdering his child, this is empty pleasure, it is pleasure that is enjoyed contrary to a good nature. Whereas a full pleasure would be a mother overjoyed at the birth of her child.
Secondly, there are conceptions of fullness with what we can readily observe, we evaluate brain damage based on the idea that such a brain is not functioning as it should, and implicitly what we say here is that there is a brain at least in concept that functions perfectly according to the nature of what it is. Just as each organ in the body has it’s primary purpose and nature to function as it should, so I believe human beings have a definite end and purpose just as Aristotle did. And you I am certain believe this to a degree as well, as nature shows us through evolution it is apparent that it is in the nature of all living things to survive, and adapt and evolve over time when that survival is threatened.
It seems to me like you’re just starting off with all these assumptions – derived from the religion you want to believe in – and using them as justification for taking a leap of faith right into the arms of the religion that inspired the assumptions in the first place.
You can’t do that if you’re interested in accepting true claims.
My belief in God is not dictated by a religion, even if I was not religious I would still believe in God because I think the existence of God makes the most sense in explaining the natural world. My religious beliefs as a Christian are on a totally different level, Christianity presents us with a gamble, either it is true or it is not, and if it is true, the way in which it is presented is such that it requires a leap of faith as an essential component. Now if it isn’t true then the point is moot, nothing you do would validate and false belief system. So in the end, as I said, it comes down to whether or not one is willing to take that leap of faith and see where it leads. I didn’t start off with these assumptions, I chose to accept these assumptions as part of that leap of faith, I have nothing to lose, but truly, if any religion is true I believe it is the Christian religion. I have chosen not to limit my understanding of all that exists to the five senses that this one species, homo sapiens, happens to have. Indeed I accept the possibility of things existing outside of these senses, and live my life that way. You seem to have chosen a purely materialist view of the world, I have not, this is the central point of divergence, everything goes back to this, I see no reason to accept that my experience as a human being with the senses I have as the sole standard for what exists and what does not.
AND I am so happy to use my 500 and 1st post to welcome you.
)