Great post. I would love to hear more about the subjects you encountered in your search to validate the Bible and canon. These are haunting questions for me as well.
We have had a few exchanes in the past (pleasant I hope?) about the issues involved for the individual deciding what they believe and why.
But what about mankind as a group, since no man is an island. "How then shall we live?" What I mean is that Dostovyesky concluded, as I understand, that if there is no God we would probably need to invent him. How does mankind define morality without an external referee. We can appeal to practicality, but that always leads you to questions about who benefits, who bears costs, and who gets to decide. And ultimately the decision is always backed by force. Without force to back it up, there is no civilization.
So do you think we are better off as a species without the idea of an external referee? Without the idea of such a ref, isn't our best hope then to try to define a moral structure that benefits the greatest number in terms of the amount of control they have over their existence? But there will always be those who would rather forgo all the difficulty of allocating resources in an objective way, and resort to thuggery and looting. Are we only to hope that we can keep the thugs and looters at bay indefinitely. Or do we hope to survive as a species each successively worse spasm of violence, repression, resistance, liberation, and ultimately violence again?
I can think of two examples of godless societies today. One is Europe, which from the historical vantage point appears to have its best days behind it. It's populace is shrinking, it's economies are bloated and stagnant from failed socialist experiments, and mostly the only things it believes in strongly is how shameful it's history is. The other example I can think of is China. They are clearly a nation on the rise, having shaken off some of the shackles of marxist dogma. It will be interesting to see how they traverse the murky waters of rapid economic advancement, old world tradition versus apparant decadent consumerism, and all without the safety valve of the democratic process. Historically China's internal squabbles have been extremely bloody. I guess when you have over a billion people, losing ten or twenty million here or there isn't that big of a deal. Especially when you don't have the idea of an external referee telling you the death of millions is not a good thing.
I know these aren't easy questions, I just figure I have to give some balance since your post seems to dwell on the costs of faith while excluding the benefits. I also thought it didn't seem to recognize the cost that can come from man's lack of faith.
How then shall we live? I guess we could just tell everyone to "be rational", but I don't think that one will work. Thanks in advance for your reply.
