Looking at the ontological argument for the existence of God, which is an argument that claims that we can demonstrate the existence of god simply by an analysis of what the concept "god" means, that by the exercise of reason and reason alone, we can come to the conclusion that a god must exist.
Philosophical reflections support at least four conclusions --
- Those who claim to know whether God exists display terminal hubris
- Intolerance is an inappropriate response to worldviews that are different from one's own, religious or otherwise
- Religious claims are better seen as locutions in an alternative paradigm that construes the world as an arena of intention, rather than in the usual one that construes the world solely as an arena of causation
- Religious discourse can usefully be seen as a fabric of stories aimed at fruitfully illuminating the human condition
Even examining how one might claim to know that there is, or is not, a deserving target for human worship turns out to be a Scottish verdict.
The ethical monotheists' form of life has two distinct dimensions. It is an intentionalist paradigm marked by the telling of stories for a purpose. Supplementing the interpretive categories of science, ethical monotheism adds a nexus of intention to its construal of events.
Not so much an attempt to describe things directly, most of the disclosure of ethical monotheism consists of interpretive stories, fables, myths, and parables designed to highlight the intention/value dimension of the world. In this context, worship itself is somewhat re-construed, not as obedience at the feet of perfection, but as celebration of the intentional fabric of life in all its forms.
Something approaching dualism invites consideration here by anyone who sees the world in an intentionalist paradigm. And even those who don't share the intentionalist paradigm can still enlist in the cause although the stories of the faithful will remain to them just stories.
