Tom Facchine – The Universe Is A How, Not a Why
AI: Summary ©
The speaker discusses the concept of Gratitude, which is the ability to be grateful without believing in God. Gratitude is not a recognized object, as it is a mechanism for life, not a source of consciousness. The speaker argues that Gratitude is necessary for humans to have a relationship with God, and that humans have to investigate their beliefs to determine if they are true or false.
AI: Summary ©
but
it's not possible to be grateful if you have no object of gratitude, or if you have the wrong one, right? And this is what every person of faith would push back against the atheist or agnostic person who says, Oh, I can be grateful without believing in God. Now you can't Who are you grateful to? What are you grateful for? You're grateful to the universe, you're grateful to your zodiac sign? What are you grateful for? Right? That's not proper gratitude, by definition, because the universe didn't give you your life. Universe is a mechanism. It's a house, it's not a wi, it's not a source in the ultimate sense, right? And so it's not proper gratitude. It's also not proper gratitude,
because the object of Gratitude has no ability to hold you accountable for anything, the universe doesn't ask you to behave in a certain way. The Universe ask doesn't ask you to pray, the universe doesn't ask you to not commit crimes, right? But when we have the object of gratitude, that is God, right, there's a lot, then there's a relationship that has to be enacted, there's a sort of adherence and a respect and a heat that has to be given. Okay, so no, I reject the idea completely categorically that somebody can be grateful in the true sense of what gratitude is, without believing in God. And the second thing, the claim that all religions claim that they're the truth
does not mean that none of them are true, right? This is fallacious thinking, okay. It's required of a person or the requisite response is to investigate how would we know if a religion was true or not? Right? If you have competing scientific theories, whether it's evolution and how sort of things came about, or whatever the fact that there are multiple claims to the truth does not imply that they're all wrong. That's ridiculous. And that's lazy, to be honest, because you have to be the one to think about in an open ended way. How would I know what's true and what's not? That's the honest, sincere question you have to ask yourself, then secondly, once you've established those criteria,
how would I know what's true? Then you have to investigate which ones match up to this criteria and which don't, and you might be surprised at what you find