> 1. Isn't the point of reducing the image of God to an obvious absurdity, as
> in these examples, to illustrate that the mysteries to which God is posited as
> the answer are beyond our comprehension?
Christianity in particular doesn't really tend to say that, though--it presents
us with a human Christ, and a God that is not really all that non-human, either.
In fact the God of the OT is quite petty, angry, jealous and insecure...
> 2. Doesn't the premise that the mysteries to which God is posited as the
> answer are beyond our comprehension lead to the conclusion that they cannot be
> addressed by reason?
If something cannot be addressed by reason then it cannot be addressed, really
by definition. Appeals to "faith" are mere mysticism. And if something cannot
be addressed logically then it certainly shouldn't be used as the justification
for or basis of political thought.
> 3. Does not the conclusion that the mysteries to which God is posited as the
> answer are beyond our comprehension cannot be addressed by reason leave
> entirely open the possibility that they may be addressed by faith?
What does "addressed by faith" mean? I think it's a cop-out. Relgion's an easy
answer to an incredibly complicated question; and, by its nature, it's not even
a complete answer--it's just a way of avoiding the question.
> 4. Does not the recognition that we are dealing in the realm of faith rather
> than reason render any effort to attack a given view from a rationalistic
> perpective irrelevant?
Even if we cannot answer 'the question', we *can* look at the elements of the
'answers' that are posited for the question, and we can ask whether they're even
internally consistent, whether their different components agree. We can look
at them in a historical context for an understanding of whence their doctrines
come. And once you start to peel away all of these layers, you quickly reach a
vague, mystical "God"--an idea that, sure, is "beyond understanding", if you
like. I don't honestly mind if people do that--it's as reasonable a response to
questions that I think are inherently unsoluble--but when they pile on all of
the *other* crap and then try to support it by their faith, I think it's a
problem. If you start with something abstract that's empirically meaningless,
you can derive *anything* from that. People therefore have a means, an excuse,
for believing *anything at all*. That doesn't mean their beliefs are "correct",
--George, way over his head but still believing he has a point.