Love your Substack and reflections. Since you are against theology, what is your own creedal epistemology? Are you Muslim, Christian? Since this is about God, objectively, I am sure there is a “way” to God you ascribe to :)
The question “Are you Muslim or Christian? What is your creed?” assumes that knowledge of God is primarily about belonging, not reason. But before we discuss religious identity, we must ask a more basic question:
What makes truth and reason possible at all?
Recognizing a transcendent, non contingent ground, what people call God, is not a theological opinion. It is a logical necessity. Without such a ground, objectivity collapses into relativism.
Ironically, secularism helped reveal that by separating religion from inquiry, it made the need for an objective ground clearer. The problem is that theology and modern discourse both treat this recognition as a story to choose from, not as the foundation of coherence.
So I’m not trying to defend a new creed. I’m trying to return the conversation to first principles, where objectivity begins and is preserved. Just like I don’t think 1+1=2 is up for debate, this isn’t either.
The “way to God” is not an identity label but the disciplined use of reason to align ourselves with the structure of reality.
Love your Substack and reflections. Since you are against theology, what is your own creedal epistemology? Are you Muslim, Christian? Since this is about God, objectively, I am sure there is a “way” to God you ascribe to :)
Thank you the compliment.
The question “Are you Muslim or Christian? What is your creed?” assumes that knowledge of God is primarily about belonging, not reason. But before we discuss religious identity, we must ask a more basic question:
What makes truth and reason possible at all?
Recognizing a transcendent, non contingent ground, what people call God, is not a theological opinion. It is a logical necessity. Without such a ground, objectivity collapses into relativism.
Ironically, secularism helped reveal that by separating religion from inquiry, it made the need for an objective ground clearer. The problem is that theology and modern discourse both treat this recognition as a story to choose from, not as the foundation of coherence.
So I’m not trying to defend a new creed. I’m trying to return the conversation to first principles, where objectivity begins and is preserved. Just like I don’t think 1+1=2 is up for debate, this isn’t either.
The “way to God” is not an identity label but the disciplined use of reason to align ourselves with the structure of reality.
Thanks again!
Thank you, I will take a look!