I was in a dangerous situation earlier today (car engine dying...highway...etc etc) and afterwards sort of found myself thanking god I was alive even though I profess to be an agnostic. Never mind how rational we think ourselves to be...are our minds simply inclined to believe in higher powers?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Sounds like a Chicken and Egg arguement, near as I can tell more people have believed in some sort of supreme being/God than not, and that shows throughout all of history.
In fact I have trouble thinking up a single culture (we know of) that adopted a policy of general atheism, (outside of post revolutionary France.)
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
I completely understand where your coming from. I often find myself begging 'god' for things that I really need (or think I need). I don't believe in the kind of god who would grant prayers (or wishes) like that, so it is completely illogical to do that.
What makes us pray to or thank a god that we don't believe is there? Does that mean we really do believe in that kind of god and are just decieving ourselves?
I don't think that is it, but I have to grant it the possibility. Maybe it is because we need to feel like we aren't alone, either in the world or in our heads. We need to feel like when we think something that is very important to us, like a heartfelt gratitude that things turned out all right or a urgent need for something to happen, there is someone that hears those thoughts and is paying attention, maybe even able to help us.
I don't think that this means that agnostics or athiests that "thank god" sometimes really do believe in god, just that deep down, they don't want to be alone. Who does?
Whenever I find myself 'praying to god' I recognize it as the metaphore that I believe it to be. I believe that everyone and everything is connected by their subconscious minds, and at certain times, and on certain wavelengths, access information from the worldwide human subconscious. When I am expressing gratitude or wishing for something I need, it is simply my mind communicating with the rest of the hive mind of mankind.
Alrighty, that probably didn't come close to addressing the question you were trying to raise, but I tried anyway.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I think people search for some sort of higher guidance that can control more than themselves, and knows more than themselves. This "guidance" usually means a God or pantheon of Gods of some kind... as vonk illustrates though, there a other ways to percieve this 'guidance'.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
I think sometimes a belief in God creates meaning out of otherwise random, meaningless, or maybe tragic events.
It's kind of like the way dreams are processed. A bunch of random things happen and our brains try to make a story or meaning out of it.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
Freud had some very interesting things to say about this topic. He said that supernatural belief is motivated by humanity's desire to answer un-answerable questions, and to appeal to a higher authority for those answers. Since we have always had unanswerable questions, it makes perfect sense that so many different religions and ideologies explaning the unknown have evolved over the years.
Freud believed it all started when tribe leaders and shamen were looked upon as superior beings, and worshiped by their followers. This slowly then evolved into religion as we know it today (deity worship), since the former system wasn't able to cope with all the new questions and knowledge humanity was acquiring (plus the leaders were human after all, and an omnipotent diety makes much more sense to worship).
What is most interesting (and controversial) about Freud's analysis is that he said that today we are in the process of another paradigm shift in regards to our beliefs. He saw the rise of science and rationalism as the system that will supplant religion as we know it today, much like religion usurped tribal worship a long time ago. He saw religious faith being replaced with faith in the scientific method. Science and religion are, after all, similar in that they both seek to answer the unknown, and explain nature.
So are people naturally inclined to believe in God(s)? I think that's the wrong question. I think the better question would be to ask "Are people naturally inclined to seek truth and knowledge?", and the answer is most surely yes. Religion was and is a means to attain this understanding. Is it the best mean, and will it continue to be the primary mean (if you think it still is)? That remains to be seen.
EDIT: on a side note, there is some evidence that there is a specific area in the brain which deals with spiritual experiences. There has been research (I'm too lazy to source, if you're interested, the book "the rise of spiritual machines" by Kurtzweil has some info on it) where volunteers had this region of their brain stimulated, and they all then claimed to have spiritual experiences (visions, etc), and each one was tailored to their individual beliefs.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
That edit is excellent. Now all we need is to have some cool new designer drug that stimulates that part of the brain for fun.
As for the question, where do you draw the line between "naturally inclined to seek truth and knowledge" and "seek[ing] to answer the unknown"? I think that these two are not necessarily the same. A person can seek truth and knowledge and be perfectly content to let many unknowns remain unknown.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Humans are naturally inclined to try to control things around them. Prior to science and real technology, the best way was to invent a god that could be manipulated into doing the big stuff for you, like changing the weather.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
Good point. I think that everyone wants to seek truth and knowledge, but I think that there are those of us who would be content with unknowns, and those of us who wouldn't be (like you said).
That is actually interesting, because it highlights a difference between science and religion. Religion claims to have all the answers (in God), while post quantum-mechanics science (at least so far) acknowledges that some things must remain unknown.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I think that's a slightly distorted version of QM. It is not that we cannot know the momentum of a particle whose position is known; that momentum doesn't exist. I think there's a difference between saying "The colours of the feathers of Quetzalcoatl are not to be known by mortal man" and "Quetzalcoatl doesn't exist". An omnipotent god still wouldn't know the momentum, if it knew the position, just as it couldn't know the real colour of Quetzalcoatl's feathers.
Now, had you said 'chaos theory', that would be something else again. But even so, this only applies to numerical analysis; in principle someone might come up with an analytic solution to, say, the Navier-Stokes equations, and then we could predict with confidence.
Also, to object to the other side for a moment, if you press a theist on this board, they are quite likely to say "Well, I don't know, but I have faith it will work out". Which is not exactly the same as claiming to have all the answers, being a rather weak cop-out, instead.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:posted by vonk: I don't think that this means that agnostics or athiests that "thank god" sometimes really do believe in god, just that deep down, they don't want to be alone. Who does?
Your quite valid point aside, it really is just a handy expression for a general feeling of gratitude.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
I think you missed my point. I was just trying to point out that since QM, scientific determinism is not as credible as it used to be.
And I'm not so sure of your explanation of it either, could you clarify? I was under the impression that you cannot know the precise momentum of a particle if you know its position (and vice versa) because of the uncertainty principle, which states that at that size, you are actually changing the momentum of a particle by observing its position (since we don't have a particle free method of observation), or vice versa. It's not that it doesn't exist (how can a particle not have momentum?), it's that we dont know it with any certainty, and the closer we get to knowing it, the higher our uncertainty becomes about knowing position (and vice versa). Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
Last year, one of the Time Magazine issues had a discussion based on a book "The God Gene" by Dean Hamer. He claims to have shown that the human brain is "hard wired" for a belief in a god. Thats about as "naturally inclined" as it gets.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
just like all genes, this one isn't necessarily expressed in all humans, so even if this theory is correct, it doesn't mean that humanity as a whole has a natural inclination towards god, just those people who express this gene
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
Angio, you have the principle right wrt QM. the momentum certainly DOES exist. it's just that assuming perfect knowledge of position implies that we have no knowledge of the momentum. And KoM, I would argue that an omniscient deity would in fact be able to know both position and momentum with absolute certainty, being that they would not be bound by physical measuring devices etc...
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I attribute the fact I still pray, despite being an atheist, to my christian upbringing.
But before you say "ah-HA!" I should let you know that I also knock on wood when someone says something that tempts fate... (Irene, Goddess of Irony, is always waiting for us to say something stupid.)
Pix
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Um, no. All information about the particle is contained in the wave function. A wave function with a perfectly determined position doesn't have a momentum, or if you prefer, is in a superposition of all possible momenta. The bit about measuring devices is an old bit of popular explanation from the thirties; how the wave function got to be in the state of perfectly determined position is not relevant, it could happen just by the natural evolution.
quote:t's not that it doesn't exist (how can a particle not have momentum?),
It can not have a momentum by having a wave function such that, if you try to measure the momentum, all answers are equally likely. And that doesn't just apply to you, it applies to the universe too.
quote:And KoM, I would argue that an omniscient deity would in fact be able to know both position and momentum with absolute certainty, being that they would not be bound by physical measuring devices etc...
Again, the physical measuring devices are not relevant. If QM is an accurate description of reality, then you might as well argue that your omniscient deity can calculate Omega, or solve the halting problem for arbitrary programs; what you are suggesting is the approximate equivalent of creating a stone so heavy it cannot be lifted.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
What was it that Feynman said, "If you think you understand QM, you don't understand QM" ? Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
The last time that I was in a truly dangerous and potentially life-threatening situation, I did not pray or think of a god in any way. I very distinctly recall realizing that I could be in a very serious accident and maybe killed or maimed. Then I said to myself "$%*& that!" and calmly regained control of my car and avoided hitting the guardrails or other vehicles.
I actually think I was less afraid of death than I was of the inconvenience of a serious but non-fatal accident.
--Enigmatic
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
"if you try to measure the momentum, all answers are equally likely"
says that there could be an infinite number of answers, but there could also be just one.
I'll admit that I am only briefly versed in QM, but my understanding is that any parameter can never cease to exist, even if our certainty of that parameter goes to 0. by definition of the universe everything has a momentum, and position and energy, and heat and...
by assuming the existance of this deity I assume that it is somehow "outside" the known/knowable universe, and is thus not hampered by the limitations of any branch of physics (this is just kinda implied in my definition of omniscient) and therefor it is "reasonable" to say that it would be capable of knowing both position and momentum with absolute certainty. I would argue that in fact this deity would also be able to calculate Omega etc... it's all tied in with the definition of "omniscient"
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Oh well, if you are postulating a deity capable of breaking the laws of logic, sure. Mind you, said deity is also capable of proving 2+2=5, so I don't know how useful it is. Again, can your deity create a stone so heavy that it cannot lift it?
Let me put it another way : The momentum is ill-defined. It 'exists' in the same sense that the inverse of zero exists; you can look for the quantity, but the answers do not make sense.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:can your deity create a stone so heavy that it cannot lift it?
I prefer the Homerism: "Can God microwave a burrito so hot that he can't eat it?"
But I think that these types of questions are kind of pointless. No, scratch that, they serve a point: to make athiests feel smart. But I don't think they have ever made a believer question their faith.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
I don't even know if they make us feel so smart. I think there's an easy enough answer, that am omnipotent God doesn't follow the laws of logic as we know them, so he can make a rock so heavy he cannot lift it, and at the same time, can lift it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Oh well, if you are postulating a deity capable of breaking the laws of logic, sure. Mind you, said deity is also capable of proving 2+2=5, so I don't know how useful it is. Again, can your deity create a stone so heavy that it cannot lift it?
Questions like that seem a mite pointless, seeing as how the only thing making the stone heavy is gravity, and you are assuming that God is unable to manipulate gravity. It also ignores the possibility, that perhaps, gravity only exists because God willed it so, (I admit there is NO logic that can prove this, but you would be hard pressed to prove it false.)
I do believe that God is bound by certain laws, both moral and physical. But I have almost NO comprehension exactly what those laws are, especially the latter. An example would be when Joseph Smith, (again my own beliefs) said, "The elements are eternal, neither can they be made or unmade," or something to that effect.
Therefore, I believe God is incapable of creating, (there is much speculation that when the bible says "created" the hebrew word means "to organize" not "create out of nothingness",) or destroying matter, because God admitted as much.
I've heard the idea that people created God as a means of comfort, control, etc. How likely is that to be true, as much as there is in fact a God, and he designed us be inclined to believe, thus making him able to manifest himself to us?
Ill be honest I think both are equally likely.
Edited for clarity and grammar
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Oh, come on, BlackBlade. The point is not whether your god can manipulate some trifling physical law, the question is whether he can manipulate logic. Let's put it another way : Can your god cause something to exist, and not exist, at the same time?
And vonk, while I realise I have a bit of a reputation, I wasn't trying to make anyone question their faith, nor is that question intended to do so. It is rather a theological question about the meaning of the word 'omnipotent', which should be of greater interest to believers than to atheists. To the atheist, it is no more than a logic game, worthy perhaps of some intellectual curiosity, like 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin'? But the theist, presmably, really believes in the existence of an omnipotent being, and should therefore take some interest in just what that being can do.
The point I was trying to illustrate is that Heisenberg is not some minor physical law, like the gravity that BlackBlade rightly dismisses; it is a mathematical consequence of certain axioms. Breaking these really is equivalent to making a burrito too hot for an omnipotent being too eat.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
To reiterate KOM, I already said that I believe God is bound by laws both moral and physical. His omnipotence to me is "He can do all that CAN be done." As for things that "ought NOT to be done." I think God has reached a state where he simply does not do those things.
I do not think God can ignore logic, but I hesitate to use my intelect or anybody elses as a means to spell out what God can or cannot do. I feel his understanding of science is very advanced compared to our own. But then again if I found out he was not as FAR ahead as I had supposed, that would not bother me THAT much.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Somalian,
If you're old enough to drive, then you're old enough to have suffered the social/cultural indoctrination that a God or God-Like being(s) exists, even though (to paraphrase BB) there is in fact no God.
Also, a few years ago, I saw the 3/4" thick, 4' x 8' sheet of A/C plywood tear itself off the roof of the SUV in front of me and take off into the air (at least 40 to 50 feet high). My thoughts were typically, "Oh, shit," followed immediately by, "I know I cannot predict this inherently chaotic motion of this large, airborne sheet, but MAN does that sucker have a lot of potential and kinetic energy. If it hits me, I'm screwed (scenes from The Omen came to mind). What's the best course of action?"
I slowed the car, and the sheet missed me by about 6 feet as is skidded to a stop in the greensward to my right.
I will admit to, later, thinking about God, namely, "God, you had your chance! Who would have known it was you if that sheet of plywood tore through my window and took me out?"
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: Somalian,
If you're old enough to drive, then you're old enough to have suffered the social/cultural indoctrination that a God or God-Like being(s) exists, even though (to paraphrase BB) there is in fact no God.
Also, a few years ago, I saw the 3/4" thick, 4' x 8' sheet of A/C plywood tear itself off the roof of the SUV in front of me and take off into the air (at least 40 to 50 feet high). My thoughts were typically, "Oh, shit," followed immediately by, "I know I cannot predict this inherently chaotic motion of this large, airborne sheet, but MAN does that sucker have a lot of potential and kinetic energy. If it hits me, I'm screwed (scenes from The Omen came to mind). What's the best course of action?"
I slowed the car, and the sheet missed me by about 6 feet as is skidded to a stop in the greensward to my right.
I will admit to, later, thinking about God, namely, "God, you had your chance! Who would have known it was you if that sheet of plywood tore through my window and took me out?"
I am wary of using life and death situations to indicate the existance of God because I personally think life in the eternal scheme of things is merely a blink of an eye. As far as God and eternity are concerned, death is as natural as birth and both by themselves are relatively unimportant. There are people constantly being born, and people constantly dying. I feel God knows each of these moments perfectly, and when you die there is plenty more to do.
I guess to paraphrase "We are not humans having a spiritual experience, we are spiritual beings having a human experience"
And when that human experience is over that is like passing the 3rd grade and going on to 4th grade, was that such a big deal?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
1) I can't see any way to separate "naturally inclined to believe in God" from "culturally conditioned to believe in God." And neither of these seem to me a valid argument for or against God's actualy existence anyway.
2) My reaction in "possibly about to encounter death or serious injury" situations is pretty much like Enigmatic's. I do believe in God, but when I'm in danger of losing control of the car my mind goes to what I should be doing, not worrying about what God is or isn't doing.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I think the question is if a person was raised with absolutely no knowledge of a pre-existing, God or religion, would they fill a hole with another figure of influence?
I think some people would be more inclined to than others, but I think certain people would develop very strong superstitions beyond what they see, or perhaps even treat a figure (alive or dead) they respect with great reverence.
Along the same lines, if you introduced stories into this person's life and treated them all with exactly the same level of reality (or lack thereof), he or she might become attached to a story so much that that it does become their guiding narrative. Again, other people would not be so inclined.
Let's speculate then that we created a seperate community of people, all brought up in a God-free environment, but with the same moral, behavior, educational etc. instruction you would give to anyone. Some of them would not require, I should think, this "guiding figure" to fill a hole. Others would attach themselves to something (superstition, story or a real figure) that has the strength of religion.
Now imagine that the person with this belief is also the most charismatic of the group, a leader of our little Godless community. His or her authority and understanding, I should imagine, would be enough to win a majority of the group over to believing in the same manner. Say, for example that if you go outside when it rains, you will get sick and will progressively become sicker until you die.
People are very prone to forming associations and groups with specific beliefs, especially if the group is a somewhat desirable thing to belong to, which, since it is run by the most charismatic person, it is. As more people join, others begin to be interested, and they join to. A religion is born, complete with its own quasi-Prophet.
Not everyone would join the Rain Religion, of course. The second most charismatic person, may possibly have his or her own beliefs- perhaps he or she is interested in trees and believes that trees are people in their own right. He or she has her own followers, a smaller group, the Tree Religion, who, because of their beliefs, are frequently outside in the rain.
Others do not subscribe to either the Rain or Tree religions and simply do their own thing.
The religions threaten each other and tension builds. People switch sides. A rift emerges between the two. The Rain people become terrified for the Tree people (since they have been out in the rain so much) and try to talk to them, which really annoys the Tree leader. One of his apostles retaliates violently.
Voila! Religious war. Of course, the Tree people win, kill the charismatic Rain prophet thus winning over most people back. The remaining Rain people are kindly persecuted until their extinction a couple of generations later. The Tree people's religion grows and grows.
Give it a couple of hundred or thousand years and the initial and fairly simple beliefs will have become complicated stories, written and rewritten in ancient books, the original foundation forgotten or twisted out of proportion.
(This is probably way faster than the process would actually occur, but you get the idea.)
Yes, I do believe that humans tend towards belief in a guiding figure/narrative.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I couldn't help but think of Lord of The Flies while reading that Teshi. Though there are differences
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I think, perhaps, you are underestimating the influence of the skeptical-scientific method of thought. Not everyone can do it, sure, but the ones who can are strongly influential in today's societies.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Along the same lines, if you introduced stories into this person's life and treated them all with exactly the same level of reality (or lack thereof), he or she might become attached to a story so much that that it does become their guiding narrative. Again, other people would not be so inclined.
I've actually seen many atheists do this, as a matter of fact.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that there is a tendency to forget that the ways we find to think about God are not God. We can only think about God by using analogies and metaphors to describe aspects of God. God is not a father, but nurtures and cares and creates and guides so "Father" is one way to think of God. Because, in order to relate to God, we attribute personality to God, we think of God as some sort of super-human. We have to shrink God so God can fit inside our heads enough that we can think about God at all. And we forget that God is bigger than that. As (I think) Augustine said, "if you could understand it, it would not be God."
Now that could be called by some a "cop out". But it is a reality in trying to define what is by nature undefinable.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:We can only think about God by using analogies and metaphors to describe aspects of God.
And therefore can never be sure He exists, because we have completely constructed our awareness of God out of metaphor.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
We can only choose to have faith, or not.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
But "faith" must be grounded in something. And as far as God is concerned, that something is by and large a product of the subjective experiences of other people. I can have faith in the nebulous "God is everything and everything is God", but that is nothing more than saying I have faith in "The universe" which in itself is also essentially meaningless.
The bottom line is that if God is so unknowable that the only way we can even think of him is to diminish him into a metaphor (which we, ourselves have created) then how can we ever distinguish the true God from our own constructs we call "God"? What is it that gives your brain-contained metaphor any more validity than a God carved out of a rock or placed on a totem? Are not both metaphors for the unknown?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Indeed, it seems to me that you have defined your god into complete uselessness.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Karl, where I disagree is that the statements in your first paragraph are "essentially meaningless". Faith is in part a certainty that we are part of something larger, that we are connected and that, "God is all in all and I am one with everything." That is full of meaning - it gives everything meaning.
Not just one metaphor - lots of metaphors. Lots of ways to describe that good/moral/love thingy. We distinguish the true ones from the ones that aren't by what works. And we use different metaphors for different purposes depending on how we need to relate to God. And we hope that our understanding matures.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
The Aztecs seemed to do quite nicely with their sacrifices. Was that a 'true metaphor', then? Recall that the nobles, at least, who were sacrificed, were to some extent willing victims.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Do quite nicely? How? Not sure what you mean? I don't imagine all Aztecs used the same metaphors for God all the time. And to what extent do you mean "true"?
We need to remember that the the ways that we think about God, useful and good or not, are not God.
For instance (and to add yet another imperfect analogy), to me KoM manifests as marks on my computer screen. I can feel safe in assuming that KoM is actually more than marks on my computer screen. I can interpret those marks as words with meaning, but KoM is even more than words with meaning. I can believe that KoM is a being that makes marks on my computer screen that I can interpret as words with meaning. Someone else could related to KoM as someone who cooks. None of those ways of describing or relating to KoM is KoM.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
'Do quite nicely' and 'true' in the sense of your previous post :
quote:We distinguish the true ones from the ones that aren't by what works.
If that is your only standard of truth, how do you reject the Aztec cosmology and theology? After all, it worked for them.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Faith is in part a certainty that we are part of something larger, that we are connected and that
I know that I am part of "The Universe" and connected to it and that it is infinitely larger than myself. I can only express or indeed even conceive of "The Universe" by metaphor and by vastly inferior models of it. However, I think the phrase "I have faith in The Universe" is very close to meaningless.
I suppose since many here will say that we can never really "know" anything, my "knowledge" of The Universe is a kind of faith, but it's no more faith than I have faith in my chair or in my keyboard. I strongly suspect when you say you have faith in God, to you at least, it means something more. But to me it sounds like you are equating "God" to "That which is, but which I cannot fully know or express" which is nebulous enough to also apply to "The Universe". Now if you want to define God that way, and nothing more, then call me a theist. But none of that in any way implies "Honor thy father and thy mother" or "Though shalt not commit adultry" or "Pay your tithes" or "Don't eat pork" or any other point of anyone's doctrine that they point to as the result of a person's "faith" in God. This, to me, implies a definition of God much more specific than "the universe". To date I see no compelling evidence to believe that this more specific being exists. I've certainly never communed with him in any identifiable way.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Not just one metaphor - lots of metaphors. Lots of ways to describe that good/moral/love thingy. We distinguish the true ones from the ones that aren't by what works. And we use different metaphors for different purposes depending on how we need to relate to God. And we hope that our understanding matures.
This again perfectly fits with the "God=Universe" definition. We (humans) have a concept of The Universe and find out what is true and what is not by what works. We modify our metaphors depending on how we, personally, relate to the universe. We hope our understanding of the universe matures. What you are describing is also a rudimentary definition of science.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that if you believed that the universe had sentience and that sentience was ultimately good...
The commandments and so forth are ways that it works to live in relationship with God. Just as "don't step off cliffs 'cuz of the gravity thing" and "must be careful with fire" are ways that it works to be in relationship with the universe.
KoM, I think that we have different ideas of what is useful. As for the Aztecs, did their metaphors make them happier, more loving, kinder, better people? Insofar as they did they were good metaphors, insofar as they didn't, they weren't. Some of the things, some of them thought about God were likely true; some likely weren't. I think that the human sacrifice thing wasn't. I'm glad we've moved past that one. I'm hoping we can get rid of the God wants us to kill people thing altogether.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
oh boy i done can contribute
quote:Despite the vast number of religions, nearly everyone in the world believes in the same things: the existence of a soul, an afterlife, miracles, and the divine creation of the universe. Recently psychologists doing research on the minds of infants have discovered two related facts that may account for this phenomenon. One: human beings come into the world with a predisposition to believe in supernatural phenomena. And two: this predisposition is an incidental by-product of cognitive functioning gone awry. Which leads to the question ...
So we basically are born and our brains are made in such a way that we must believe in a God? But the details of it all is where it gets groggy.
Seems just as logical that if there was a God he would create us in such a way that we would be inclined to believe in him. Why he allows so much confusion to exist in regards to his nature is not something I care to argue in this post.
I am happy that the author of that pice "Is God an Accident" is civil enough to take both sides seriously, rather then present a stark crazy religionist and a calculating, calm, happy scientist.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
quote:"God is all in all and I am one with everything." That is full of meaning - it gives everything meaning
kmbboots--I don't see any real meaning in either of those statements. I mean, I've said the second one--but I was sooo stoned at the time!
What do either of those mean?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well the first is a quotation (don't know the source). I parse it to mean that God is in everything, including me so I am connected to everything. And may the Force be with me. So what I do has a larger purpose. I effect things or people in ways I don't expect - for good or ill. What I do matters. That what happens to others effects me, too.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
And this is different from a universe in which there is no god, in what way? And how do you tell the difference between a 'god which is in everything' and a god that just plain doesn't exist?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
KoM,
Why don't you tell me how they are the same? And you "tell" by choosing faith. (haven't we been over this?)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
'Connected to everything' does not require a god; gravity will do just fine, really. Or even electromagnetism. (I do assume that these are not what you mean by saying 'god'; if they are, then you are using a completely misleading terminology.) And affecting (not 'effecting') things in ways unexpected to you, wow, how profound. How does this need a god? Quite ordinary Newton will do for that, you don't even need chaos theory.
And choosing to believe, well, fine, but why bother? What's the point of believing in a god that doesn't make a difference? The way you describe it, it seems like a decision completely without consequence, as though you might say "I choose to believe" and "I choose to have some ice cream" in the same tone of voice. I don't know, maybe that's true, but if so, it doesn't exactly seem like something worth arguing over.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
KoM said: "Indeed, it seems to me that you have defined your god into complete uselessness."
by this definition it seems you have defined Newtonian physics to be useless to a 5-year-old. I think we can safely say that the toddler is incapable of fully understanding every facet of Newtonian Physics. Does that mean that Physics is useless to him? tell that to him after he's jumped off the roof of the house and died because of that physics.
and going back to the "burrito so large it can't be microwaved" argument: you say that an omnipotent God would have to go against logic in order to do so, and in a certain light you may be correct. But this is in the same way that Newtonian physics states that light cannot be sped up or slowed down, despite the fact that Relatavistic physics says otherwise. Perhaps the subset of logic that we see as the whole picture is in fact just a concentrated subset of what is truly out there. Perhaps given this greater Logic 2+2 can = 5, and a stone so large it can't be lifted isn't contradictory.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Yes, Newtonian physics is useless to a five-year-old. An instruction not to go on the roof, now, that might be of some use. I would note that relativistic physics says exactly the opposite of what you claim, to wit, light has the same speed in all frames of reference. But apart from that, if you're going to postulate a god capable of breaking the laws of logic, why not just come out and do so? This about 'maybe in a larger logic' is just hand-waving. Have some courage, man. If you really think that your god can make A, B and C such that all the B are C, one particular A is a B, but that A is not a C, then say so. It is totally non-sensical, indeed it makes meaningful discussion impossible, but if you want to assert it, fine. But don't wave your hands with vague metaphysics.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
kmbboots,
What you do has a larger purpose as long as you believe that what you do has a larger purpose.
Religious philosophy has redefined "purpose" to mean "possible purpose, not necessarily now (or ever) realized"
Think about it: you've got some bum, living out on the street, sitting in a corner all by himself and never interacting with anyone. Eventually, he dies, and is cremated by the city. Someone looking back at his life will surely say, "But he had a purpose! We just aren't smart enough to be aware of what it is!" It gives you a warm, fuzzy feeling, but is (at its core) a meaningless statement.
I have a purpose because I say I have a purpose.
And BTW, "Being one with everything" is quite different from "being interdependent with a lot of things."
So, there's this Buddhist in the park, and he walks up to the Soy-Dog vendor and says, "Please make me one with everything!"
[ May 16, 2006, 06:47 PM: Message edited by: Boothby171 ]
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
I was certainly not attempting at vague metaphysics, I was trying to draw a direct comparison to the discrepancies between simple newtonian physics and more advanced/modern additions to our understanding of the physical universe.
A better example than the light one (admittedly I probably didnt use that one correctly, and was likely flat out wrong with my particular wording)
gravitational acceleration is 9.8 m/s2. forgiving rounding this is effectively true where I am currently sitting, and was the understanding of physics back in year X. Now if you zoom out a bit we realize that it just happens that this is the numerical value of gravity very near the earth's surface with respect to something much much less massive than the earth. however, the greater understanding is that gravity follows the inverse-square law with respect to the masses of all objects involved and the squares of their distances from each other. using this understanding I can say under different circumstances that gravitational acceleration is only 2 m/s2 or what have you.
This is directly comparable to what COULD be possible of logic. I am indeeed asserting that perhaps God is capable of breaking what we currently understand to be the "Laws of Logic." there was no intention of masking that assertation, as it's exactly what I was trying to state. I'm saying that it's quite possible that the true understanding of logic is in fact not broken in all cases when you say that 2+2=5, even though in our limited field of view it is broken. just as the changing of gravity does not violate the greater physics witnessed in the universe despite the fact that it does break previous "laws" of physics that man had ascertained.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
boothby, are you saying that things do not have purpose if we don't understand them?
I don't understand the purpose of the key left in my cubicle by the previous occupant, but certainly it DOES have one... it opens a lock somewhere, and in a greater view perhaps it will be used by someone to open that lock, revealing some document and saving the company...
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Grimace,
By the time Newton had figured out what the gravitational constant of acceleration was on the surface of the earth, he had also pretty much figured out the inverse-square law, as well. So he know, right off the bat, that a_c was different at different distances.
But your point: if you make enough exclusions, you're no longer in the realm of Newtonian Physics...or logic, and the concepts aer meaningless.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
if the concepts are meaningless it's only when addressing questions which are similarly meaningless
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
And if you leave the cubicle, and the "purpose" for the key is never discovered, do you still say it has/had a purpose? How many years does that key have to go without a known purpose before you recognize that it may have no purpose?
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
I agree--the whole "rock so huge" is silly. But so is talking about a being that is not bound by the rules of logic, or time, or space.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Never mind 2+2=5, that's math. Let's go directly to logic.
All As are Bs. X is an A. Therefore, X is a B.
Are you seriously postulating a god capable of making this statement false? If so, how is it meaningful to assert that it exists, since it is plainly capable of existing and not existing at the same time? Indeed, it is capable of breaking and not breaking the laws of logic; being simultaneously good, evil, and a little purple duckling; and painting the giraffe orange while filling the bathtub with brightly coloured green dreams, sleeping furiously. You just cannot discuss such an entity in a meaningful way, neither languge nor brains are wired for it. And that includes the statement 'this entity exists'; this is not a meaningful assertion. You might as well say 'Orange duckness of the North Pole exists', the sentences are completely equivalent.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
perhaps the only purpose of that key was to have me write that post about it and inspire further discussion... I'm just saying that there are purposes that we will never know, and that doesnt mean that they dont exist. It's like saying that my never meeting anyone in China negates their existance.
KoM, I think I see what you're saying, but my view is that I HAVE seen "evidence" of God in the way the universe behaves and in various aspects of my life, so to the best of my understanding of logic and all else he exists. Is there any certainty in this? Am I stating with certainty that this existance is fully encompassed by what I currently understand to be existance? No. Does that make this belief/understanding meaningless? by your estimation it apparently does, but by my estimation it certainly doesnt. Even if the only way this wasn't meaningless was by how this understanding affects my actions it would have some meaning.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
additionally, I can discuss things that seeimngly defy the laws of physics as we understand them just fine (otherwise no one would have been able to come up with things like string theory, wormholes etc...)
you just have to take into account that they are being discussed through the possibly limited scope that we are capable of seeing/speaking through. Without having an intimate knowledge of X culture I can still meaningfully think about it and discuss it, with the understanding that said thoughts/discussions may be flawed or incomplete..
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:KoM, I think I see what you're saying, but my view is that I HAVE seen "evidence" of God in the way the universe behaves and in various aspects of my life, so to the best of my understanding of logic and all else he exists.
This is completely irrelevant to what I was saying. The question is not the existence, but the qualities, of your god. Can it, or can it not, make un-true the third statement of a syllogism, given that the first two are true?
Your analogies of being able to discuss a culture, without having seen it firsthand, is flawed, because that ability depends on words having some agreed meaning. If logic does not apply, then you can prove (quite literally, from true axioms) that white is black, not in some metaphorical sense but in the literal sense that absorbing all wavelengths of light is equal to not absorbing them. And given that, you can no longer discuss things meaningfully, because your audience can never be sure what a given word means.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Oh, and physics, pff. Physics has nothing to do with deductive logic. Its laws are temporary expedients. But a syllogism is true forever, or all language is meaningless.
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
If believing in religion/God does indeed improve the health of the believer, as I have seen claimed, then I see a Darwinian explanation for a inclination to believe in God. While this could be because God helps those who believe in him, I think it could also be a sort of evolutionary placebo.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I am happy that the author of that pice "Is God an Accident" is civil enough to take both sides seriously, rather then present a stark crazy religionist and a calculating, calm, happy scientist. [/QB]
That's why it's a worthwhile read, take it as what one will.
A nifty part is that it works well even in an agnostic viewpoint, be it either that God is ultimately unknowable, or that it is unknowable whether or not God exists. It would help with wondering where religion seems to stem from, why it is so fascinating from a microcosmic perspective, and why it can be artificially cultured and rigidly instilled, for ends both positive and negative, and used or forced so frighteningly in situations even where the religion can nigh-universally be seen as an untrue joke (e.g. Scientology, Heaven's Gate).
The whole fantasy-prone psyche and the timeless 'how could someone believe that' idea.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I tend to think that there is a Darwinian reason why people believe in god, but not because it improves the health of believers.
I think that as man's brain evolved there was a point where we began to look for causes and effects. Being able to identify cause and effect allowed us the ability to invent, and thus to create tools that gave us better survival capabilities.
The concept of "God" is an artifact of our tendency to search for causes. God is the anthropomorphic cause of everything, which was necessary when human perspective was too limited to understand the true causes of what they observed.
I kind of like the irony in the idea that the concept of God was necessary to evolve human intelligence, which in turn lead to the development of formal rational thought.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by kaioshin00: If believing in religion/God does indeed improve the health of the believer, as I have seen claimed, then I see a Darwinian explanation for a inclination to believe in God. While this could be because God helps those who believe in him, I think it could also be a sort of evolutionary placebo.
You misinterpret the theory of evolution. If believing in God improves the health of believers, then this has very little evolutionary significance. Now, if you say that believing in God (and I'm talking about the belief alone, not being a part of some organized religion or anything else, but simply believing) improves your reproductive fitness, then you can assert an evolutionary argument for belief. Now I am willing to concede that in the past, being a part of a religion (the right one in your environment, for example, a christian during the inquisition) might have granted you a reproductive advantage over people who weren't a part of that institution, but I don't think that belief in god had anythign to do with it. You could be a seemingly perfect christian, but secretly not believe in god, and you would share all the benefits that other members of this group may have had. Also, I think that in recent times, the significance of religious ideology is small in terms of your advantages in a situation with differential reproduction.
I think it would be very hard to defend the thesis that believing in god grants you an evolutionary advantage.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:If believing in religion/God does indeed improve the health of the believer,
I take issue with this statement for a number of reasons... not because I think it is entirely untrue but because I think it is too narrow and there are far more facets than such a statement presents.
Stress and worry is (I should think) a major cause of illness... since the belief in a God/religion sometimes serves to release some of this stress by putting the power elsewhere (simplified, I know but you know what I mean). However, the same can be achieved without God, religion or indeed any kind of other belief, simply by learning to deal with stress on a purely human level. I'm not sure if medidation counts as belief or not.
Also, it could be argued that in many cases the fear instilled in people through a belief of retribution by a God or Gods actually often ends up increasing worry and becomes detrimental to health. Some religious practices are also probably not very good for the physical body. I don't imagine, lets say, that extreme fasting is very healthy.
In addition to this, I would say that religion/God/belief may have a worry-reducing side effect, but I [/i]wouldn't[/i] say that it is the reason for belief. In the past, bad health from worry was not so much of a concern- clean water, good food and hygiene were far more pressing. It is only longitevity, I think, that has made mental (and through that, physical) health such a worry.
Again, though, some religious laws do deal with the preparation of food and seem to (maybe at the time) cover this kind of direct physical-health instruction. (We should update these: "thou shalt eat seven servings of vegetables a day." Think how healthy everyone would be!)
------
In a completely seperate statement, I should add that although I believe that it is natural for humans to believe in God, Gods, or some other form of guiding figure or narrative, I do not thin that it is necessary.
I think human society can live without such a belief, at least on such a complex and supernatural level. I hestitate to say that I think that it will sometime in the future because, from my point of view and no offense intended beyond my single viewpoint conflicting with yours, it seems that humans have a large capacity for irrationality on this subject, tending, unfortunately, towards violence.
I'd like to believe that religion as we know it will wane and transform into something safer and less- defined.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
In addition to being a possible stress-reliever, church is often a primary source of social interaction for seniors. I would say that is as likely to be the source for any positive effects as a possible religion-related stress reduction.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I'll jump in real quick just to say something on the possible evolution of a god gene.
Let's imagine that there were some early humans with a god gene (what I'll call a predisposition to be religious or believe in god for the purpose of this post) and another group which lacked a god gene.
As we see in religion today, it tends to form in-groups and out-groups. Those with the same religion are in-groups, anyone who believes differently is part of the out-group, from the standpoint of the religion.
If those with the god gene had a strong, built in desire to congregate with believers, their in-group, and work together, that gives them a strong evolutionary advantage. The community that forms is better able to nurture its members to childbearing age, and protect its fertile membership.
Those without the god gene have to come up with their own reasons to form a community. Again, if we look at today's religious groups for evidence, it seems possible, even likely, that those without the god gene may have been ostracized or even seen as enemies of the god gene group.
I would say that a strong case can be made that having a god gene is an evolutionary advantage. Especially in early periods of civilization, when survival would have been less sure.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Religious unity could translate into effective group cohabitation and organization.
The sort of cohesion that cult-level adherence to a religion would bring is certainly something that could be advantageous against both other man and the elements.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: I agree--the whole "rock so huge" is silly. But so is talking about a being that is not bound by the rules of logic, or time, or space.
But that is the only way to talk about God. And, again, even by saying "a being" you are shrinking God. Of course when you shrink God (which we have to do to talk about God) the parts don't fit - you are mixing metaphors (so to speak).
Logic and even language are tools. Good tools and useful tools that help us understand reality. They describe reality but reality is not determined by them.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
I think that as man's brain evolved there was a point where we began to look for causes and effects. Being able to identify cause and effect allowed us the ability to invent, and thus to create tools that gave us better survival capabilities.
The concept of "God" is an artifact of our tendency to search for causes. God is the anthropomorphic cause of everything, which was necessary when human perspective was too limited to understand the true causes of what they observed.
Daniel Dennett said something like this whe I heard him speak a little while ago about his new book on religion, Breaking the Spell. He said that it's been found that people have evolved to assume that anything they don't know is a person rather than an inanimate object (he called this the "intentional stance"), because assuming the reverse could easily lead to death. For instance, if an early man was in the woods and heard a stick crack behind him, it would be better for him to assume that another man made that noise because if so he might be in danger of being attacked, and if not he'd only be startled for a second. Obviously as you learn that certain things are not likely to be people, you adjust your expectations; but in prehistoric times when less as known about the world, many of these anthropomorphic beliefs could have persisted long enough to have rituals built around them.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
this discussion is all over the place,
I am afraid that I have to agree with KOM in that "A god that is everything" is not useful. I have already made my points that I believe God is bound by laws both moral and physical. He can do "All that can be done."
This all reminds me of Socrates question as to whether virtues were virtuous of their own accord or because the God's made them so. Were the laws of logic,physics, etc laws in of themselves or because God made them such?
I personally feel that virtues existed before our God who created us (a very Mormon view) and that physical laws also existed before our God, I conclude that God will not break laws of morality as he would then cease to be the source of righteousness in this universe. He cannot break the laws of science though man can scarce say at all what those laws are as their understanding is just like a 5 year old lecturing Isaac Newton.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
kmbboots,
That's the problem I have with most/all discussions about God:
"God is the thing that exists that we can't understand"
"How do you know it exists?"
"Well, that's one of the things we can't understand!"
And then it pretty much becomes exactly what you want it to be, nothing more, nothing less (to quote Lewis Carroll)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
That is pretty much true. It doesn't make God any less true.
I think that discussions on God or even "what you want God to be" though are very important and say a great deal about humanity in general, societies in particular and individuals in very particular. Just bearing in mind that the tools we use for these discussions are imperfect.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
kmbboots,
No offense, but in my mind, "It doesn't make God any less true" really equates to something less than or equal to zero.
And I think I fully understand (as well as most, at least), the "God as a Rorsharch test of our own hopes, dreams, and beliefs." But, to paraphrase you, it doesn't make God any more true...
And, as usual, wee're left with the following:
* God cannot be proven or disproven
* God cannot be defined
* God cannot be known
* God cannot be understood
And somewhere in all that, we have people who say
1) God exists (and then, you have all the sub-groups who say that their particular god is this, or that, or the other thing)
2) God does not exist
and
3) Who the heck can really know?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Leaving aside the question of usefulness for a moment, it seems tome that kmbboots has defined herself out of any sort of rational discussion. How can you reasonably discuss something that cannot be defined, and that does not follow the laws of logic?
I would note that, if we are to take this seriously, then her god is plainly evil, in addition to being good, neutral, Scrooge, and Santa Claus. If it has no attribute that can be fixed by ordinary language, why worship it? What does it even mean to worship it? Satanism and the Holocaust are entirely reasonable responses to a belief in this god, because it is so completely undefined.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
to answer a post a while ago about the possible evolution of a god gene. There's one huge problem with an evolutionary theory regarding belief in a deity: you can't tell if someone is telling the truth when they say they believe in god.
So, lets postulate that there is a society, and certain people have this so called god gene, and other don't, and in this primitive society, those with the gene survive better and produce more offspring because they are working together. In evolution, selfish individuals tend to prevail, so all you would need to do to ensure that you enoyed the same benefits as the "in group" would be to say that you also believed.
It is for that reason that I do not think evolution would have favored the conservation of a god gene, because having the gene or not having the gene would not make a huge difference in terms of reproduction, since anyone can join a group of believers who are enjoing a reproductive advantage. Now I do think that at some point, religion did help societies grow, but rather than saying it was genetic, I would argue that it was social, being passed down from generation to generation in the form of parents indoctrinating their children, much like what we see today
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Mmm. It's worth noting that humans are highly evolved to detect deceit among each other. One theory postulates that this is why we have such big brains in the first place. I do not think it obvious that such a deception could be kept up for a long time, in a small tribal group where you see everyone every day.
Against this, it should be noted that the first religions were probably not as strong on belief and faith as modern ones, leaning instead to ritual and magic. They didn't really have a need for faith, since they could point to the thunder as proof of the existence of gods. Don't believe in the Lion God? A hunting trip should convince you differently.
In short, I think you guys are projecting modern religions onto the early ones, which is extremely dubious, and then reasoning about evolutionary psychology from that projection, which is even more dubious.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: That is pretty much true. It doesn't make God any less true.
You just blew my mind. Now not only does God not have to follow any rules of logic, but we can also ignore them when we discuss God?
If I understand you correctly, this is what you're saying, and please correct me if I'm not getting it right: "We cannot know anything about the nature of God, including the fact of God's existence, because the very definition of God's nature is that which is beyond our ability to understand."
At the same time, you know that God exists, and you know what many of the aspects, desires, and directives of this unknowable God are.
Is that right? How is it possible?
To me, you seem to be saying that we cannot actually have a real discussion about God, because our minds simply cannot grasp God, or anything about God, with any fidelity.
First of all, I don't see how it's possible to come to that belief. How does one postulate something which is beyond understanding?
Secondly, how can God be beyond all understanding, when people all over the world claim to know that God exists, and claim to know, understand, and live by the various rules God has set down for us?
Is everything in regards to God allowed to be contradictory and illogical?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
BlackBlade wrote:
quote:I personally feel that virtues existed before our God who created us (a very Mormon view) and that physical laws also existed before our God, I conclude that God will not break laws of morality as he would then cease to be the source of righteousness in this universe. He cannot break the laws of science though man can scarce say at all what those laws are as their understanding is just like a 5 year old lecturing Isaac Newton.
What does it mean that God is the "source of righteousness in this universe"? Do you mean that without God righteousness would be impossible? You couldn't love, be honest, faithful, caring, etc without God? In what way? Now, you'll have to set aside things like "well if God didn't exist we wouldn't have a universe to be righteous in" because those arguements also support the idea that God is the source of all Evil, too. After all, if he didn't exist, we wouldn't have a universe to be Evil in either.
Perhaps a better way to phrase the question would be, how would "righteousness" in the universe be affected if God abdicated his position as Source of Righteousness but kept up with all his other responsibilities, especially given that you believe "virtue" existed prior to God?
Further, if you believe that God cannot break the laws of science, and presumably get around all the seemingly science breaking "miracles" with the idea that we hardly know all the laws of science, does this apply to the laws of righteousness as well? You've said that God cannot break the laws of righteousness. God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son on an altar. By our limited understanding of the laws of righteousness, God either commanded Abraham to commit a grave sin, or he deceived Abraham by commanding him to do something that he never really intended Abraham to do. Both of those are generally violations of what we humans call righteousness. So, do those acts of righteousness become righteous when God does them, but otherwise are unrighteous? Or is God operating on some "higher righteousness" that we simply don't know about? Doesn't the first case bastardize the meaning of the word righteous, especially if it's something that existed prior to (and is therefore independent of) God? Doesn't the second case pretty much open the window to all manner of unrighteous behavior because God gets to hide behind the inscrutability clause? I mean, what's the difference really between 9/11 and God commanding the destruction of Old Testament peoples, including their women and children? How do you know that both aren't condoned by your God, operating within laws of "righteousness" beyond your human comprehension? Is there any seemingly deceptive or heinous act that couldn't be excused by the inscrutability clause?
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Mmm. It's worth noting that humans are highly evolved to detect deceit among each other. One theory postulates that this is why we have such big brains in the first place. I do not think it obvious that such a deception could be kept up for a long time, in a small tribal group where you see everyone every day.
Against this, it should be noted that the first religions were probably not as strong on belief and faith as modern ones, leaning instead to ritual and magic. They didn't really have a need for faith, since they could point to the thunder as proof of the existence of gods. Don't believe in the Lion God? A hunting trip should convince you differently.
In short, I think you guys are projecting modern religions onto the early ones, which is extremely dubious, and then reasoning about evolutionary psychology from that projection, which is even more dubious.
I was just trying to use the scenario that the poster set up in trying to demonstrate the possible evolution of a god gene. I agree with you that ancient religion was much different than modern ones, and that tribal ideology was different in nature than modern religious belief.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think you are taking what I say further than it is meant to go. That we cannot understand God entirely does not mean that that we cannot understand anything about God. That language and logic are imperfect tools for describing God (or anything really) does not mean that they are useless tools. Discussion about the existance and nature of God is good and useful regardless of its limitations, I just pointed out that there are limitations.
This should not be a tough concept. Are you really able to describe everything else entirely?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
For what it's worth, I have to look very skeptically at the claim that humans are "highly evolved to detect deceit among each other." That might be true in some relative sense, but it's not a de-facto quality of all humans to be taken at face value. Humans also have an incredible capacity to deceive themselves, and to overlook that which they do not want to see. If we are such a highly evolved species at recognizing deceit in each other, how is there so much successful cheating and deception played out daily one against the other? I think it's very obvious that a deception -- such as a non-believer acting the part of a believer to fit in -- could be kept up pretty much indefinitely, especially since ritual is easy to mimic.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Not only is "ritual easy to mimic", but it is easy to invent too. I mean, if one invented a new ritual (eventually for the worship of a "new" deity), how could the others know it is invented?
(Please read this in the context of tribal/ancient rituals/religions.)
A.
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
Higher power is what drives us.
Breath is counted. God comes in each one.
Posted by Ozymandias (Member # 9424) on :
quote:Originally posted by suminonA: Not only is "ritual easy to mimic", but it is easy to invent too. I mean, if one invented a new ritual (eventually for the worship of a "new" deity), how could the others know it is invented?
(Please read this in the context of tribal/ancient rituals/religions.)
A.
hmmm...good point. For most of us, it's a personal decision that no one else can influence.
What you just described is a cult.
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
Inventing religion reminds me so much of little 10-year-old children using their imagination and sharing a superstition that one of them introduced to the group with authority and a display of sincerity. So, they all go along in this make believe world coming up with rituals to protect themselves from some evil from happening to them. They follow the leader in imitating the ritual as they pass a certain tree stump and this brings them closer as a group for they have been initiated into a shared secret. They also feel superior to those outside their group because they know something the others don't. Leaders and followers get reinforcement for acting in their roles. As time passes the fable grows as the leader tells the group about more rituals and "facts" about this superstition. The leader uses things that happen as signs and evidences that his story is real.
All the kids know at some level it is just make-believe, but they act like it is real so that they can share in this experience. Eventually, the group isn't able to meet as often and the magic dies and each member makes new friends, etc. Through a western education, the kids are taught to be skeptics and are discouraged from telling "lies" or imaginative tales, so the kids grow out of it. But, the adults in their lives still hold on to religious beliefs and tell them that this is not make believe, but real. So, the kids never bother to apply their skepticism to religious beliefs.
Disclaimer: I know that this is an over generalization and some religious people believe that they have turned their skepticism to their religious beliefs and found that their beliefs held up. Others see no value in being skeptical, but instead value faith.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Perhaps a better way to phrase the question would be, how would "righteousness" in the universe be affected if God abdicated his position as Source of Righteousness but kept up with all his other responsibilities, especially given that you believe "virtue" existed prior to God?
Further, if you believe that God cannot break the laws of science, and presumably get around all the seemingly science breaking "miracles" with the idea that we hardly know all the laws of science, does this apply to the laws of righteousness as well? You've said that God cannot break the laws of righteousness. God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son on an altar. By our limited understanding of the laws of righteousness, God either commanded Abraham to commit a grave sin, or he deceived Abraham by commanding him to do something that he never really intended Abraham to do. Both of those are generally violations of what we humans call righteousness.
It is not hard to reason as to why God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son. Indeed God commanded his own son to suffer for the sins of the world and go to an early grave. I am also wary of judging God based on "what we humans call righteousness." To me God is the source of all righteousness because he is the one that reveals what righteousness is to us. Be it designing us with a concience, or telling men/women his will concerning us.
quote: So, do those acts of righteousness become righteous when God does them, but otherwise are unrighteous? Or is God operating on some "higher righteousness" that we simply don't know about?
I would favor the moral code God lives by is not identical to the one he gives us. Exceptional moral codes are not rare amongst us, we allow battle field commanders to shoot deserters without giving them a trial first. God killing a human being is not the same thing as a human killing humans. I could explain all the possibilities why that might be but that would take awhile.
quote: Doesn't the first case bastardize the meaning of the word righteous, especially if it's something that existed prior to (and is therefore independent of) God?
Again I believe righteousness is greater than God, but human beings do not understand the moral codes God is bound by.
quote:Doesn't the second case pretty much open the window to all manner of unrighteous behavior because God gets to hide behind the inscrutability clause?
the verb hide is deceptive as you are suggesting God would do something and guilty, thereore feeling the need to explain his actions to us. God rarely (as far as I understand him) explains his actions as a way to placate us, he may do it as a means of instructing us. Case and Point Abraham knew exactly afterwards why God had commanded him to sacrifice his only son. It was to test his faith and to instill in his mind an understanding that the very God who had commanded him to sacrifice his son would himself down the road sacrifice his own son.
quote:I mean, what's the difference really between 9/11 and God commanding the destruction of Old Testament peoples, including their women and children? How do you know that both aren't condoned by your God, operating within laws of "righteousness" beyond your human comprehension? Is there any seemingly deceptive or heinous act that couldn't be excused by the inscrutability clause? [/QB]
I understand that it appears that this philosophy opens the door to people to do all manner of evil and say "But God commanded me to do it!" God did indeed commande Israelites to kill Cannanites including the women and children (as if killing the men was some sort of lesser evil) the only reasoning I have heard concerning the matter was that "The Cananites had had the gospel taught to them many times, and had chosen wickedness instead."
but ANYWAY, you are asking ME to tell you how we are supposed to know when God is in fact behind a man's actions (when they appear to be evil). Well I do not have a universal answer for that. All "I" know to do is pray concerning the matter with full confidence that God will validate the act for me.
If a man killed another man and was genuinely told to do it by God, I leave the handling of the aftermath to God, I do not pretend to be a prophet who could speak authoritively on the subject.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It was to test his faith and to instill in his mind an understanding that the very God who had commanded him to sacrifice his son would himself down the road sacrifice his own son.
Why would God need to test Abraham's faith? Wouldn't God already know?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Again I believe righteousness is greater than God, but human beings do not understand the moral codes God is bound by.
So, as a human being, how do you know that God is bound by any moral code at all? After all, he can pretty much do anything at all without violating a code you admittedly don't understand. This is the same frustration I have with the "God is everything" mentality. If God's code is only understood by what God does and He doesn't deign to explain the (apparent) contradictions, then how can you know he has a code at all? How can you know he is a font of righteousness when he is unbound by the definition of righteousness that you understand for yourself?
quote:The Cananites had had the gospel taught to them many times, and had chosen wickedness instead.
Is there scriptural evidence of this? Or is it a backward-looking justification?
quote:If a man killed another man and was genuinely told to do it by God, I leave the handling of the aftermath to God, I do not pretend to be a prophet who could speak authoritively on the subject.
Which is a very compelling arguement in favor of purely secular law and law enforcement. Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
Although I don't share those beliefs any longer. Let me attempt to answer them from a Mormon perspective.
Tom: Mormons would say that It was Abraham that needed to learn for himself just how far he was willing to go to follow God. You just don't know until you are put in the situation. God already knew that Abraham would pass the test.
Karl: Mormons would say that they know God has to follow rules of righteousness or he would cease to be God because a prophet of God said so. Remember they believe that God has a God and he in turn has a god, etc.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
Just a quick comment on the "secular law" comment by KarlEd: I at least don't see the two statements at odds... If someone justifiably was told by God to kill another human being (which I find somewhat doubtful on a personal basis) then the difference is this: He should go to jail etc for violating secular law. But at the same time he may not be disbarred from heaven (or whatever his end goal is.)
i.e. legal != religiously moral, and religiously moral != legal though this is somewhat unfortunate it is the way of the world.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:i.e. legal != religiously moral, and religiously moral != legal though this is somewhat unfortunate it is the way of the world.
Thank God for that! (irony intended). Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:If someone justifiably was told by God to kill another human being (which I find somewhat doubtful on a personal basis) then the difference is this: He should go to jail etc for violating secular law. But at the same time he may not be disbarred from heaven (or whatever his end goal is.)
So, why would God command humans to serve as executioners when 1) He could just do it himself, and 2) will punish people to eternal damnation anyway? It seems like a lot of unnecessary confusion and misunderstanding for a simple test of faith.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:It was to test his faith and to instill in his mind an understanding that the very God who had commanded him to sacrifice his son would himself down the road sacrifice his own son.
Why would God need to test Abraham's faith? Wouldn't God already know?
When God tests us, it is not to find out the outcome (he already knows it) its to give us an opportunity to grow. Abraham by demonstrating such strong faith and trust in God was rewarded for his faith. God certainly could not just throw everyone who would eventually make it into heaven into heaven, and conversely everyone else into hell without giving us the opportunity to make the choices ourselves that would lead us there.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:God certainly could not just throw everyone who would eventually make it into heaven into heaven, and conversely everyone else into hell without giving us the opportunity to make the choices ourselves that would lead us there.
Not sure why. Seems like actually making the choice is a bit of a formality.
Posted by David G (Member # 8872) on :
God gave humans free will. While God knows the future, He does not preclude us from exercising our free will. We are allowed to act out our lives.
(As I am Jewish, I do not believe in heaven and hell as defined by Christianity. My comment pertains more to the story of Abraham and Isaac.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:God gave humans free will. While God knows the future, He does not preclude us from exercising our free will. We are allowed to act out our lives.
That doesn't quite explain why actually making the choice would be necessary. If God knows the results of all your choices, why would He have to let you make them if He could just skip ahead to the consequences?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Here's one thing I never understood. Why does God allow people to go to hell?
Any rational person, if given a clear and obvious choice, would opt for an eternity of pleasure over an eternity of suffering. I think that is obviously true.
Anyone who would opt for an eternity of suffering either does not grasp what that means, or is mentally ill. If that is the case, and they are unable to make a rational choice, then it seems that God should not punish them for the inability to understand.
If any rational person chooses an eternity of suffering over an eternity of pleasure, the only logical explanation I can see is that they were not properly informed about the choice. No rational person would intentionally choose an eternity of suffering, so they must have chosen unintentionally, because they knew no better.
It seems to me, that if God wanted to prevent people from going to hell, all God would need to do is make sure that people are given a clear and obvious choice, with no ambiguity or possible misunderstanding.
Is God unwilling to do this? Is God unable to show all people the right way and the clear choice? If God is the epitome of all goodness, righteousness, and love, why not set things up such that nobody goes to hell?
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
ok, so this example is less extreme MC, but I think it proves the point.
Any rational person, if given a clear and obvious choice, would opt for a healthy life over an unhealthy one. I think that is obviously true...
however, how many (especially in this nation of ours) still eat unhealthy food, neglect exercise, overindulge in alcohol and other drugs etc... (including me).
Even on the faith side of things, I'll freely admit that I often do things that my personal beliefs tell me will lead me to Hell. This is because the temporary/selfish gains are easier to give in to than the long-term/selfless gains that we should really be going for.
If you're trying to argue the "if God is all good, how can he let evil exist" point, there's about 1500 years worth of philosophy that pretty much centered around that discussion.
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
I think that it would be awful to curse us for eternity due to the weakness of the flesh, the same flesh which He created.
I have compassion for all of us who desire to live a healthy lifestyle, but for some reason find that they are not quite able to do it. As a psychologist, I work constantly to help people learn how to make it easier for themselves to live the way they want to (i.e., quit addictions, control extreme emotional reactions, replace unwanted thoughts, etc). It is not easy. We are not born knowing how to use systematic desensitization to help us overcome our fears; how to set specific, attainable goals and reinforcement contingencies; or how to set up our environment so that it is easier to keep our goals, etc. And God certainly did not bother to tell us these things in the Bible. He seemed to set us up to fail; that is if he exists.
Furthermore, an eternity in hell seems pointless, the individual learns nothing from it and is given no opportunity to repent or change. The punishment is just sadistic pain.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
A: So, you believe in a deity? B: Yes. But it’s not just “a deity”. It is THE deity, the REAL one, the TRUE deity, it’s called – A: Well, I’m not particularly interested in its name, I have a “simple” question: “Has this deity given any LAWS to follow?” B: Sure, it is the basis of our moral system, everybody should follow these LAWS. A: And what happens if someone doesn’t follow the LAWS? B: Easy, that someone goes to HELL, for all eternity (after death). A: Does HELL equal pain and discomfort, consuming fire and unpleasant stuff like that? B: Well, they used to define it like this, but HELL is basically the “absence of the deity”. It is obviously something unpleasant. A: Yeah, but if I don’t believe in this deity, its absence (especially after death) doesn’t imply anything particularly unpleasant. I’d say this HELL is irrelevant for me. B: Ok, it is your choice not to believe in the deity, you might even plea the ignorance in your defence when the judgement day comes, but the deity knows you actually had the chance to follow the LAWS and you didn’t, so HELL is guaranteed for you anyway. A: Yeah, but if I don’t believe in this deity, its absence … B: Ok, it is your choice not to … A: Yeah, but if … [conversation truncated because of the infinite loop]
A.
Posted by David G (Member # 8872) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: That doesn't quite explain why actually making the choice would be necessary. If God knows the results of all your choices, why would He have to let you make them if He could just skip ahead to the consequences?
God gave us the opportunity to have (or to make for ourselves) a fulfilling life. A fulfilling life is not just an end result, but a process which includes the many choices we make along the way. A fulfilling life is not possible without actually living it.
God created us not just for His own pleasure, but for our own.
Abraham's life and his relationship with and understanding of God would not have been quite the same, but for his enduring and experiencing the test God gave him.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote: Originally posted by TomDavidson: That doesn't quite explain why actually making the choice would be necessary. If God knows the results of all your choices, why would He have to let you make them if He could just skip ahead to the consequences?
Because you're not the person who made those choices until after you've made them. We're changed by our choices. And we grow into the kind of person who would belong in Heaven, or Hell. For our own sake, for our own understanding and acceptance of the consequences, we can't be punished before the crime (or rewarded before our good choices).
Just like if we could see the future and see that someone would commit a crime, we couldn't go put them in jail before it happened ... because they aren't the person who's made the final choice to commit the crime yet. Of course, I know there could be some argument on that one.
To me this life is more about us learning to be the kind of person God wants, than about testing us so God can see if we'll do what He wants. He already knows what we'll become, but until we go through the learning and growth that we get from our choices, we haven't become that person yet. If God is anything I can believe in, He's just. So He couldn't punish us or reward us for things He knows we'll do, until we deserve it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: Well, they used to define it like this, but HELL is basically the “absence of the deity”. It is obviously something unpleasant. A: Yeah, but if I don’t believe in this deity, its absence (especially after death) doesn’t imply anything particularly unpleasant. I’d say this HELL is irrelevant for me.
So why are you worried about it? End loop.
Seriously, if you keep choosing to not be with God (both in this life and the next) why would you be bothered to not be with God?
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
coming from a theist's side of the argument:
not believing that there is an invisible blanket warming me doesn't lessen the cold I will feel if that blanket is taken away...
As an atheist Hell is irrelevant as far as your daily life goes, but it doesn't make the punishment any less severe if it turns out to be accurate.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The blanket isn't taken away. If said atheist is cold all he has to do is choose to use the blanket.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
"not believing that there is an invisible blanket warming me doesn't lessen the cold I will feel if that blanket is taken away... "
And believing that there is an invisible blanket warming you (when, in fact, there is not) won't keep you from freezing.
Steve (Atheist; out looking for real blankets)
P.S. kmbboots: there is no blanket! I'd just be wrapping myself in air, and pretending not to freeze.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:God gave humans free will. While God knows the future, He does not preclude us from exercising our free will. We are allowed to act out our lives.
That doesn't quite explain why actually making the choice would be necessary. If God knows the results of all your choices, why would He have to let you make them if He could just skip ahead to the consequences?
That just does not make sense. God created us so that we can grow as he grows. How much sense does it make to give say a new born baby its 2nd grade spelling bee award, a most improved basketball player medal, a high school diploma, PHD, and copy of its autobiography. The baby has yet to make the choices that will warrant those rewards. Experience is something that you obtain on your own. Part of what makes us human is the capacity to learn and make choices based on our knowledge.
Are you seriously suggesting that if you were God you would just program people with all the knowledge, memories, and experiences they WOULD of had had they been left with their own devices, up until the point you were capable? Sounds alot like The Island to me.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think faith is complicated, both from a believing and an unbelieving perspective.
From a believing perspective, faith is both a virtue and a gift. It's something pray for and (apparently) rewarded for. It sometimes feels like credit - you get the substantiation after you have proven that you don't need it.
From an unbelieving perspective, I have known too many people who have longed to feel faith and simply don't, or can't, to think it is something that is simply chosen.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Kat, I don't understand "feel faith". What I have chosen doesn't result in any particular feeling. Some people do, I'm sure, but I think a lot of people would be disappointed if they expect that to be a reliable result of chosing faith.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You can substitute the phrase "have faith" in my last sentence and it would mean the same thing. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If you mean that some people want to choose faith and can't (for whatever reason), I think that is true. I do think that many people expect some sort of dramatic change once they make this choice - a road to Damascus kind of experience. Often, too, people think that everything will be different, easier? in a magical kind of way. While I think that may be true for some, it isn't for everyone and often people give up on faith because it doesn't have immediate "results".
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm not sure why some people do not find what they seek when they seek it. I love the gospel and my faith in part because I have almost always found peace/comfort/answers when I sought/tested it. When I haven't, my memories of doing so are strong enough to tied me over. I don't have an explanation for that that always fits, so I don't have an explanation for why some people don't.
Since it's generally worked for me, I'd be tempted to say that people aren't looking hard or long enough, but I've seen enough heartbreak following sincere seeking when they didn't find anything to accept that. I don't know why not everyone has faith.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Hmmm...for me it is deciding - over and over again. The "results" tend to be cumulative rather than immediate. However, since I have been making this decision since before I can remember, it may just be that I don't really know anything else. Slacking off, sure, but not turning away.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
you guys are missing the point of the blanket analogy so let me explain further:
Your current state: comfortably warm Theist's reasoning: because I am wrapped in an invisible blanket. Atheist's reasoning: because the temperature out here is fine.
possible future state (afterlife) Theist's reasoning: if the blanket is taken away I will be frigidly cold (it is afterall a very good blanket) Atheist's reasoning: should be the same as now more or less.
So, if the theist is right, the atheist will be freezing once that blanket is taken away (Hell). Whether or not the atheist ever believed that the blanket existed doesnt stop it from having an effect (assuming it did exist).
Similarly, denying the existance of God doesn't necessarily mean that he's not watching out for you, making your life more bearable. And neither does it mean that if that presence is taken away existence won't be worse, it just means that they won't know why it's so bad all of a sudden.
I don't intend this to be an attack on atheism per se, but more a warning that Pascal's wager CAN affect you if you're wrong, even if you don't think so. I believe I'm right in believing in God, but I also accept that I could be wrong and perhaps I'll regret it, but it seems many of the vocal atheists here completely deny the possibility that they will regret their beliefs.
Steve (Lapsed Catholic slowly letting the blanket fall down)
[ May 19, 2006, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: TheGrimace ]
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
God is the aether? I think that was rejected at the time of Newton.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: So, if the theist is right, the atheist will be freezing once that blanket is taken away (Hell). Whether or not the atheist ever believed that the blanket existed doesnt stop it from having an effect (assuming it did exist).
The blanket doesn't get taken away. You can decide to be warmed by it or not.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
no, I'm using the definition of Hell as the absence of God (i.e. the absence of the blanket)... whether you chose to believe in the blanket or not has noo bearing on weather or not the blanket warms you or ceases to when it is taken away.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Right. And I am saying that God is not absent from us - we can choose to be absent from God.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I would argue that pretty much no one chooses to be absent from God.
Many religious people have trouble understanding this; often central to their doctrines is that some people WOULD choose to be absent from God.
To which I say: show me one person alive who, when confronted with God, rejected Him. Don't quote from scripture about some hypothetical, possibly mythical person who may or may not have rejected God, and whose afterlife is by definition a matter of speculation. Show me a person who, fully believing in the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient God, said "Meh."
People are "absent" from God only because they can't perceive Him, not because they dislike Him for some reason. And given that God knows before they're born whether or not they'll be able to perceive Him, and is according to most doctrines omnipotent enough to make Himself noticed if He felt like it, their ability to exist in His presence is entirely His responsibility.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote: Well, they used to define it like this, but HELL is basically the “absence of the deity”. It is obviously something unpleasant. A: Yeah, but if I don’t believe in this deity, its absence (especially after death) doesn’t imply anything particularly unpleasant. I’d say this HELL is irrelevant for me.
So why are you worried about it? End loop.
Seriously, if you keep choosing to not be with God (both in this life and the next) why would you be bothered to not be with God?
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not bothered by “the absence”. I actually don’t feel the need for “a presence”. And by the way, I do assume my risk of “being proven wrong” after death (and thus sent to HELL).
I was pointing out “the infinite loop” because it is this particular kind of “self-sustained reasoning” that I was faced with, way too often:
quote: A: Yeah, but if I don’t believe in this deity, its absence (especially after death) doesn’t imply anything particularly unpleasant. I’d say this HELL is irrelevant for me. B: Ok, it is your choice not to believe in the deity, you might even plea the ignorance in your defence when the judgement day comes, but the deity knows you actually had the chance to follow the LAWS and you didn’t, so HELL is guaranteed for you anyway.
kmbboots, the way you ended the loop is quite ok with me
The worst/bothering part (for me) is that when a theist friend finds out about my “(atheistic) views”, they FEEL and SHOW pity for me! Well, I don’t need that pity, I’m “a big person”, I am prepared to stand by my choices and I take the responsibility that comes with them.
As for:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson People are "absent" from God only because they can't perceive Him, not because they dislike Him for some reason. And given that God knows before they're born whether or not they'll be able to perceive Him, and is according to most doctrines omnipotent enough to make Himself noticed if He felt like it, their ability to exist in His presence is entirely His responsibility.
I don’t like the sound of it. It’s like “avoiding the responsibility”. Placing the blame on “Him”. Why bother? I suppose this (i.e. the quote) is the typical “reasoning” that Church was trying to fight using the ingenious idea that if faith (in “Him”) cannot be forced upon non-believers, at least we can make them feel guilty for not being worthy enough to feel “His” presence. Note that it all comes down to it: the sin of not believing “the truth” is punished (by the all-loving deity).
A.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
As far as I can tell you're the one who's brought punishment (and HELL</scarey bold capital letters>) into it.
I understand that you've had this conversation with other people who've used that argument, but they're not here, so if you want to address them this is not the place for it.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
dkw, I didn't use <bold> letters, and I'm sorry if anyone was offended. I used capital letters just to point out the concept.
And BTW, I'm not TheGrimace:
quote:Here's one thing I never understood. Why does God allow people to go to hell?
A.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Fine. You weren't the first one to bring it up. You still seem to me to be having a conversation with people who aren't here, rather than addressing the posts that are here.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:show me one person alive who, when confronted with God, rejected Him.
Me: Elijah, did you get a chance to pray about being baptized? E: Yes, I did. Comp: That's great. Did you get an answer? E: Yes, I did. I felt like God wanted me to be baptized. Me: I'm so happy for you! That's great. E: But sisters, I want to go to hell. Us: <stunned silence> E: If I accept that God, then I have to put him first. I don't want to put God before my art, and I don't want to say I'm wrong. I don't regret anything I've done - I don't think I have to repent.
Direct quotes. It definitely happens.
I'm not postulating what happens to him next, but people definitely choose to turn away.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm willing to bet that he was lying to your face, Katie. Without having the chance to speak to him independently, I'm going to have to go on faith for this one -- but somehow I find that scenario far, far more likely. I know several people who've lied to missionaries in similar situations to extricate themselves from what seemed like an awkward environment, and I'd imagine that those missionaries, if they believed what they were told at the time, probably came away with a slightly skewed picture of human nature.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Tom, you asked for one example. I know you're enamored of your theory, but maybe when your theory doesn't fit the facts, you're going to have to realize that it is possible your theory is wrong.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Also, I'm suspicious of your desire to have an honest discussion if you rebut my stories by telling me that they are all illusory.
Do you want me to make up stories of what I think your experiences actually were? If you want respect for your experiences, you have to extend that respect to others for their experiences.
If you want people to dismiss you and never share anything, by all means, continue to dismiss them.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's not that I think it's illusory. It's that I think you, as a missionary, should automatically take with a grain of salt anything that anyone you've targeted for conversion might tell you about their appreciation of your faith. There are substantial pressures applied on both ends, and I believe that social pressure is one of the most common breeding grounds for falsehood.
If we were to ask missionaries how many people out there were Satanists, for example, based on what they're told, we'd get a hugely unrealistic number.
The problem of course is that most such "rejection" stories for Mormons are going to be missionary anecdotes, and I recognize that finding other examples will be difficult. But I maintain, based on both my experience with missionaries and my experience with people who've lied to missionaries, that it's far more likely that the targeted individual is lying about their experience to get themselves off the hook than that they actually experienced the glory of God.
From my own experience, I know that the missionaries who visited me were extremely disappointed that I felt nothing, were confident that I had done something wrong, and wanted to keep coming back over and over again to help me feel the Spirit. I had to go to some lengths to make it clear to them that I wasn't interested in continuing the process, and it certainly would have made my life easier if I'd just said "yeah, I felt the Spirit, but I'm just not interested for X reason." The fact that I felt nothing was interpreted as an invitation to continue.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
So you are assuming he must be lying because there's no way he actually got his prayer answered.
Your entire thesis rests on the impossibility of him having the prayer answered as he said he did. That's forcing the facts to fit your pre-set conclusion.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
No. See my edit above, actually.
I think it's highly unlikely that he got his prayer answered and yet found God unsatisfactory, and considerably more likely that he wanted to find a way to extricate himself from your company. Even the third option -- that he felt something, wasn't entirely sure how to interpret it, and yet was uncomfortable with joining the church and simply sought a rationalization you'd accept -- is more likely than the first possibility, as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:And given that God knows before they're born whether or not they'll be able to perceive Him, and is according to most doctrines omnipotent enough to make Himself noticed if He felt like it, their ability to exist in His presence is entirely His responsibility.
I'm still not sure what you mean by "perceive him". What I perceive as God, you do not. We have both made a choice about how we perceive what is around us. And, yes, I suppose God could take that choice away from us. I'm grateful that God doesn't.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You are still arguing from the conclusion. You think that because the story goes against your theory. Since you are deeply attached to your theory, you discount all evidence that would contradict it.
Very human, but not persuasive.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: the sin of not believing “the truth” is punished (by the all-loving deity).
Explain "punished"? The "punishment" you talk about is to keep not believing the truth. Because you choose to.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:We have both made a choice about how we perceive what is around us.
I would submit that no one normally chooses how to perceive things, but can choose how they'll interpret what they perceive.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You think that because the story goes against your theory.
I would argue that this is perfectly natural, since you're presenting me with a third-party statement in a situation where that third party has every motivation to lie, and is in fact in a situation similar to one in which I was sorely tempted to lie about that very thing. One possible interpretation is that he's not lying, but -- as I said -- you may as well assume that everyone who tells you they're a Satanist is telling the truth, or that Scott Roberts really eats babies. To a casual forum visitor who didn't get the joke, the latter possibility might actually seem feasible; I've seen people berate Scott for making tasteless anti-Mormon jokes, not knowing the background.
What I'd really like is a first-person "I spoke to God and rejected Him," but those are curiously hard to come by -- except among (no surprise) the mentally ill, and I think we're agreed that they're a population of questionable utility for this purpose.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Okay, so you and I choose to interpret what we perceive differently. How does that change my meaning. We both perceive stuff; you choose to interpret it one way I choose to interpret it another.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Tom, you asked for stories. If you didn't have the slightest intention of taking them seriously, you didn't ask in good faith.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:How does that change my meaning.
It changes it enormously. Because if you've actually perceived some bunch of sensations that are uniquely God, you've perceived something I haven't.
If you've just experienced the same heat, cold, and visual stimuli that I have, and have chosen to call those things "God," you're just defining terms.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Tom, you asked for stories.
Yes, I apologize. It didn't occur to me -- and it absolutely should have -- that I would have gotten mainly missionary rejection stories on this site. Had I thought of it, I'd've first explained why I tend to dismiss all missionary anecdotes out of hand. You DO understand why many people might be tempted to lie to a Mormon missionary about successfully feeling the Spirit, though, right?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I have not perceived anything that I couldn't explain as "not God" if I choose to.
Nor, come to think of it has anyone else, in my opinion. Angelic visitation = weird dream, burning bush = hallucination caused by too much sun, voices in my head = mental illness, love = response to chemical stimuli.
Depends on what we choose.
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
Tom, I haven't "spoken to God" in the most literal sense, but I have had spiritual experiences that have convinced me of the truth of my religion/church. Despite this, I have had times when I have actively decided not to follow it because it was inconvenient or because of my own pride or because I was "mad at God," etc. Heck, I'm kinda in one of those periods now.
So am I lying or crazy?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Thanks. I'll remember.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Despite this, I have had times when I have actively decided not to follow it because it was inconvenient or because of my own pride or because I was "mad at God," etc.
That's not quite the same thing, though, as actually rejecting God. "I believe that the Catholic God exists, but reject Catholicism" is hugely different in practice from "I believe the Catholic God exists, but still use a condom," even if you can logically connect one to the other.
IIRC, even Satanists don't actually believe the Christian God exists as described in the Bible; if they believe, they believe He's just one of many. They don't believe they're in active rebellion against an omnipotent, omniscient foe.
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
quote:That's not quite the same thing, though, as actually rejecting God. "I believe that the Catholic God exists, but reject Catholicism" is hugely different in practice from "I believe the Catholic God exists, but still use a condom," even if you can logically connect one to the other.
I guess I'm not sure what kind of parameters you are setting up for your definition of "reject."
But to continue in your vein of cheerful pessimism, I can point out that the vast majority of people who "reject" something like a religion will, for the sake of their new belief, re-interpret their previous experiences in such a way as to make them acceptible to their new belief system. So it's entirely possible that there are people who have "rejected the Catholic God," for example, but would never admit it because it would conflict with their new epistemology. So we can't trust them, either.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:So it's entirely possible that there are people who have "rejected the Catholic God," for example, but would never admit it because it would conflict with their new epistemology.
I'm not sure which of those hypothetical epistemologies would still include the existence of the Catholic God. Can you give me an example?
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote: the sin of not believing “the truth” is punished (by the all-loving deity).
Explain "punished"? The "punishment" you talk about is to keep not believing the truth. Because you choose to.
I honestly thought that the “punishment” I was talking about was obvious from my post (i.e. “being sent to hell” – punishment that incidentally, is irrelevant for me). And as a note, when I used the term “the truth” (note the quotation marks) I was referring to any particular "property of/story about the deity".
A.
PS: dkw, I’m trying to communicate with people that I obviously don’t fully know. Your reaction makes me feel like I don’t belong here. If this is a generalized opinion, maybe I should stop posting.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
suminonA, of course keep posting!
But what do you mean by "being sent to Hell"? Hell, in my belief, is the absence of God. Which one can choose or not.
A kid choosing to play in his room is not a punishment; the same as a kid being sent to his room - when he wants to be somewhere else - is. I suggest that "hell" is the former rather than the latter.
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
quote:I'm not sure which of those hypothetical epistemologies would still include the existence of the Catholic God. Can you give me an example?
Nope, because that's not the point I was making with that particular example.
As it happens, I gave an example of someone who has rejected God but still believes in him, but you dismissed it. And I, being the shy, retiring, and non-confessional type that I am, have no particular desire to go into further explicit detail about it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I've got to confess that I'm fascinated by this. If you don't want to discuss it publicly, would you shoot me an email? I'm interested more than I can possibly express in the worldview of someone who fully believes in a hostile God.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
When did Dante say that God was hostile?
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
quote:I'm interested more than I can possibly express in the worldview of someone who fully believes in a hostile God.
Whoa! Yeah, as much as I would love to think that I could excite such ineffable interest in you, we must have crossed some wires somewhere: I didn't mean to say or imply that I thought God was hostile.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Without going into the Christian side of things, it seems pretty clear to me that the Yahweh described in the Old Testament is highly hostile to anyone who is not a Jew, and not exactly friendly even to the Jews.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
That doesn't mean that folks get to put words in Dante's mouth. "Hostile" was Tom's word.
KoM, you don't get to keep redefining the terms either. I think that you have sufficient indication of the variety of opinion regarding the nature of God. You don't get to pick one aspect (i.e."without going into the Christian thing") and pretend that it is representative.
My opinion of the Yahweh described in the Old Testament is that it is a description of a particular people's relationship with God written from their perspective. It is an important part of scripture for Christians because God choose to become incarnate as one of those people.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
To say the Yahweh of the old testiment in summation is "hostile to anyone who is not a Jew, and not exactly friendly even to the Jews" demonstrates a very hasty generalization and selective use of accounts concerning him.
Though I doubt you really want me to KOM, I would be willing to submit several situations that show Yahweh's loving side, both to Jews and to Gentiles.
If you believe God is the "Embodiment of all that is good, and perfection itself." One might postulate that a "Hostility" towards all that is evil is a neccesary attribute of that state.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
suminonA, I would hate for you to take anything I said as an opinion that you should stop posting here. I don't want you to leave.
I do want you to realize that the theists on this thread don't (all) have the opinions about hell and damnation that you seem to be attributing to us.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:As it happens, I gave an example of someone who has rejected God but still believes in him, but you dismissed it.
In what scenario would this description not produce a hostile Judeo-Christian God (since I'm assuming we're talking about the JC tradition, here)? Are you hypothesizing a God who does not care whether or not you believe? IIRC, Mormon doctrine (for example) specifically states that the above situation is the ONLY condition under which God is hostile.
As I said earlier, a permanent conscious rejection of God is nothing like a temporary "Oh, God, I won't do this because I'm mad at you," or even "while I theoretically believe in God, I'm still going to use birth control because I think it's right and wonder whether the priests are really hearing Him clearly." That you've occasionally gone counter to what you half-heartedly believed was God's will does not mean you've rejected God.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Do you think the only response God is capable of is hostility?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Tom: I dunno, God could be hostile if you devoted your life to the persecution for others for their beliefs (i.e an Angel issuing a beat down to Alma the younger during his rogue days, and threatening him with destruction if he continued doing as he was, I am not sure if you are familiar with that story.)
Jesus seemed quite hostile to the pharisees and saducees for the intentional blindness and hypocrisy.
He had angry words for Peter when Peter tried to talk him out of sacrificing his life.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Do you think the only response God is capable of is hostility?
I'm not sure how that logically follows. But I believe Mormon doctrine is in fact fairly clear about the belief that people who knowingly reject God are "cast" into Outer Darkness. They don't jump; they're cast. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Do you think the only response God is capable of is hostility?
I'm not sure how that logically follows. But I believe Mormon doctrine is in fact fairly clear about the belief that people who knowingly reject God are "cast" into Outer Darkness. They don't jump; they're cast.
somebody who posesses such a character as to deserve to be sent there is probably willing to sprint to outer darkness when asked if they had to choose between heaven and hell. For somebody that evil, living with God is worse than living with God, they have a deep hatred for all that God is.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
There are more human states than complete rebellion and total piety.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: There are more human states than complete rebellion and total piety.
And if you are a Mormon you believe there are more places then just heaven and hell Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*confused* Was that to me?
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
quote:In what scenario would this description not produce a hostile Judeo-Christian God (since I'm assuming we're talking about the JC tradition, here)?
I honestly have no idea how you are defining "hostile."
quote:That you've occasionally gone counter to what you half-heartedly believed was God's will does not mean you've rejected God.
Well, sure--as everyone has sinned, obviously all believers have, at some point, done something they believe they shouldn't. However, my example said nothing about "occasional" or "half-hearted" belief.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:However, my example said nothing about "occasional" or "half-hearted" belief.
So you were fully and completely confident that God's will was for you to act a certain way, and aware of God's desires, and you consciously acted counter to that will? Your thought process really went "God's watching me do this right now, and God definitely exists and definitely disapproves, but I'm going to do it anyway?"
Even Adam and Eve thought, in their ignorance, that they could hide.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:So you were fully and completely confident that God's will was for you to act a certain way, and aware of God's desires, and you consciously acted counter to that will? Your thought process really went "God's watching me do this right now, and God definitely exists and definitely disapproves, but I'm going to do it anyway?"
I've done that before. Half a dozen examples immediately spring to midn - usually when I wanted to do something quite badly.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:However, my example said nothing about "occasional" or "half-hearted" belief.
So you were fully and completely confident that God's will was for you to act a certain way, and aware of God's desires, and you consciously acted counter to that will? Your thought process really went "God's watching me do this right now, and God definitely exists and definitely disapproves, but I'm going to do it anyway?"
Even Adam and Eve thought, in their ignorance, that they could hide.
Not the best example, there are people who think God told them not to but fully expected them to do so. (ignore debating this topic, just pick a different instance please)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: That doesn't mean that folks get to put words in Dante's mouth. "Hostile" was Tom's word.
KoM, you don't get to keep redefining the terms either. I think that you have sufficient indication of the variety of opinion regarding the nature of God. You don't get to pick one aspect (i.e."without going into the Christian thing") and pretend that it is representative.
Possibly you misunderstood my intent, which admittedly is easy to do from a hasty before-breakfast post. I meant to suggest, as a point of interest for Tom to consider, that the authors of the Old Testament apparently did believe in a not-very-friendly god.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ah...I did misunderstand. I thought your example was being used to justify Tom's assumption that Dante meant hostile.
Sorry about that. Now it makes much more sense! Thanks for the clarification.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I meant to suggest, as a point of interest for Tom to consider, that the authors of the Old Testament apparently did believe in a not-very-friendly god.
Oh, I'm aware of that one. But a God you obey because you're terrified of Him is still a God you don't consciously disobey. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Tom, again you are leaping. One is not necessarily "terrified" of a not-very-friendly God. Even if one were "terrified" that may not be the reason one would obey such a God.
And we weren't even talking about a hostile God. That was your construct.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I meant to suggest, as a point of interest for Tom to consider, that the authors of the Old Testament apparently did believe in a not-very-friendly god.
Oh, I'm aware of that one. But a God you obey because you're terrified of Him is still a God you don't consciously disobey.
True, but the Israelites do disobey their god at many points in the Old Testament. Which, incidentally, suggests to me that either they aren't very bright, or their god isn't that convincing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Tom, again you are leaping. One is not necessarily "terrified" of a not-very-friendly God. Even if one were "terrified" that may not be the reason one would obey such a God.
Why would YOU follow a God you don't particularly like or admire, if not fear?
quote:And we weren't even talking about a hostile God. That was your construct.
As described by pretty much every major Christian religion, the Christian God is hostile to those who do not believe, and especially hostile to those who believe but choose not to follow Him.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
From the previous page:
quote:IIRC, even Satanists don't actually believe the Christian God exists as described in the Bible; if they believe, they believe He's just one of many. They don't believe they're in active rebellion against an omnipotent, omniscient foe.
There are different kinds of satanists. Laveyan satanists (from Anton LaVey) are actually atheists. They don't believe in a supernatural at all, and they operate under the assumption that Christianity is inherently evil. Therefore anything that opposes Christianity is worthy of praise or devotion. As such they simply define "Satan" as anything that opposes christianity. Satan is a concept, not a divine being.
Other satanists argue that based on the bible, all the death and destruction has been wrought by God, not by the devil. They see Satan as being the good figure, and God is the bad guy. After all, Satan mostly just tries to get people to think for themselves.
I don't know what they feel about who created what, or whether God is omnipotent.
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
quote:So you were fully and completely confident that God's will was for you to act a certain way, and aware of God's desires, and you consciously acted counter to that will? Your thought process really went "God's watching me do this right now, and God definitely exists and definitely disapproves, but I'm going to do it anyway?"
Yes.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Wow. I'm trying to imagine ever making that choice in that situation, and it's completely foreign to me. Assuming I believed in God, and assuming that I believed that God were omniscient, and assuming that I also believed He were benevolent, it's absolutely unthinkable for me that I would knowingly do something contrary to His will, simply because His will would be definitionally better than my own judgement.
I could see doing something automatically, without particularly thinking about it, and only remembering after the fact that God would have disapproved -- but that's something entirely different. Consciously disobeying a deity I believe to be benevolent is something I honestly can't even comprehend. To countermand the will of God on any given issue is a blanket admission that I am wiser than God on that topic; it denies belief in His wisdom.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Um. Are you seriously claiming that you've never done something you knew was wrong? What, you never sneaked a smoke just to be cool?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The whole point of being a God is that He would know -- know -- that it was wrong. I overeat now because I don't think about it and because some part of me, deep down, feels like I'll get away with it. If God were to descend and say, "Hey, seriously, Tom, don't have the second hot dog," it'd take a really huge -- and baffling, as far as I'm concerned -- effort of will for me to say "Up yours, God. I want another hot dog."
It's pretty much a whole order of magnitude, isn't it? It's like continuing to drive your car when it's making a funny noise versus trying to drive your car when your mechanic tells you "if you turn the key, your engine will blow up."
The fact that we don't see more of this is actually one of the biggest reasons I have for disbelief. Because if people really believed in God's advice even half as strongly, it'd be a dramatically different planet.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Then there's the idea of God's forgiveness. We're all sinners, and God doesn't expect perfection, just devotion.
In fact, there are Christians that like Christianity specifically because they feel they can get away with sinning and "backsliding," but then they get to repent and go through the whole "Born again" thing all over again. It's like taking another hit.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I think there are few people, even among the most devout Christians, who would suggest that their god micro-manages the lives of the faithful to the extent that you suggest here. Indeed, such an assertion would be rather absurd, since it plainly doesn't happen.
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
quote:Consciously disobeying a deity I believe to be benevolent is something I honestly can't even comprehend. To countermand the will of God on any given issue is a blanket admission that I am wiser than God on that topic; it denies belief in His wisdom.
Tom, you're just not getting it. You've got to stop intellectualizing. I'm not saying that in those situations I think I'm wiser than God. I'm saying that in those situations, I'm more concerned with achieving my desired outcome than the one I know God wants.
Now, it's true I'm not claiming to have had some kind of temporal theophanic experience. And I'm glad, because while it would probably make it harder to resist God's will in the future, it would also definitely increase my own level of accountability.
quote:Because if people really believed in God's advice even half as strongly, it'd be a dramatically different planet.
Huge oversimplification. Do you know anyone, theist or a-, who fully lives up to his expectations? Frankly, I'm baffled by your continued refusual to recognize that it's possible to know what is wrong and still do it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'm saying that in those situations, I'm more concerned with achieving my desired outcome than the one I know God wants.
And, as I've said, I find that absolutely unthinkable. I can imagine caring about achieving your own outcome without thinking about what God wants, but knowingly doing something in direct opposition to God's desires just seems staggeringly foolish.
quote:Frankly, I'm baffled by your continued refusual to recognize that it's possible to know what is wrong and still do it.
I would argue that it's precisely our lack of real belief in God that makes this possible.
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
quote:And, as I've said, I find that absolutely unthinkable. I can imagine caring about achieving your own outcome without thinking about what God wants, but knowingly doing something in direct opposition to God's desires just seems staggeringly foolish.
Well of course it's foolish. I'm not disagreeing with you on that. What I'm saying is that no one--not even intellectualizers like you (and often me)--makes decisions based solely on a dispassionate, ultra-reasonable calculation of potential short- and long-term pros and cons.
And it's not like I'm proud, morally or intellectually, of the times I've consciously gone against God's will. But not to admit it when it's the truth would be monumentally dishonest.
But, yeah, if you find what I have said to be my own experience "completely unthinkable," I'm not sure there's much further fertile ground for discussion.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: suminonA, I would hate for you to take anything I said as an opinion that you should stop posting here. I don't want you to leave.
Ok, I’m still here [btw, thanks kmbboots!]
quote:Originally posted by dkw: I do want you to realize that the theists on this thread don't (all) have the opinions about hell and damnation that you seem to be attributing to us.
I do realize that, and I didn’t try to imply that (any of) the theists on this thread/board have the particular opinion that I presented. Actually, that’s why I’m glad to be here, people here are a lot more open to discussion.
Nevertheless, I wanted to present that particular point, even if only to be refuted by everybody here. You’d be surprised how many (other) people I know who think that I deserve to go to hell (by their definition), and also take that as an argument to convince me of the benevolence of the deity they believe in.
To put it plainly, this is the paradox that I don’t really like about the religion in general, and the one I was brought up with in particular. If I was given the power of decision, and access to information/knowledge, and made a choice, based on what I understand to be good and morale, why would an all-loving deity punish me if I decided that I don’t need to believe in that particular deity (i.e. its existence) in order to be good? Maybe as the title of this thread puts it, “I’m not naturally inclined to believe in a deity”. Does that make me unworthy as a person? Am I inherently flawed? Why wouldn’t a (potentially existing) all-loving deity accept me even if I didn’t (as in “wasn’t able to”) believe in it?
Anyway, this is all rhetorical, I’m not “blaming” anyone here for this paradox, but at least keep in mind that there is at least one person here (i.e. myself) who was presented with it.
--------- As for the last posts above, I think the problem comes when deciding what is the deity’s will? If one cannot see it for oneself, who does one have to listen to? Who is to trust? Who knows really the deity’s will? Of course, these questions are relevant only following the premise of the existence of a willing deity.
A.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:And it's not like I'm proud, morally or intellectually, of the times I've consciously gone against God's will.
I think it's the "conscious" bit that gets me. Because while I've unthinkingly done myself and others harm, I've never done so knowingly and can't imagine choosing to do so when I would know, from the mouth of God Himself, that no greater good would come of it.
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
quote:Because while I've unthinkingly done myself and others harm, I've never done so knowingly and can't imagine choosing to do so when I would know, from the mouth of God Himself, that no greater good would come of it.
Cynic that I am, I have a hard time believing in someone who has never done something that may be morally questionable or inappropriate ("no greater good would come of it") but does it anyway because it is advantageous/fun/easier/pleasurable.
Of course, I also recognize the possibility that you're just a much, much better man than I.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: As described by pretty much every major Christian religion, the Christian God is hostile to those who do not believe, and especially hostile to those who believe but choose not to follow Him.
The Christian God I believe in loves even those who believe and choose not to follow.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Tom, you have never, ever done something because you wanted to even though you knew it was probably a bad idea?
I have a very hard time believing that.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I think Tom's making a distinction between something that is "a bad idea" and something that causes "harm."
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I think Tom is making a distinction between "knew it was probably a bad idea" and "knew, absolutely and completely, with the authority of God behind it, that it was a bad idea."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's a self-cancelling proposition, because he doesn't believe in God according to him, so he would never have been in that position.
WHat about "knew, definitely, that it was a really horrible idea with probable bad consequences". I still can't believe that in 30 years, he's never done something like that. I think everyone has.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I think there's a distinction between those distinctions, dkw, and I'm not seeing things clearly enough to distinguish which distinction Tom is trying to make -- if indeed he is only trying to make distinct one distinction and not both.
He did state that he has never knowingly caused harm, and can't imagine choosing to cause harm when divine edict states that harm is bad. I've done things that I knew would have bad consequences, but I don't think that's the same thing as causing harm [added: which I have also done]. It depends on how broadly you want to define "harm."
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
Tom: I think you have set up a straw man. Countless people every day knowingly make poor choices for instant gratification, etc. Some of those people know that their God will not be pleased with their decisions. I posit that no person is capable of perfectly following their God (unless their God does not expect much). That is the whole reason for forgiveness or mystical rituals to get God's pleasure again.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Thinking that there would be no room for any human error once one has declared oneself to believe in God is a pretty good reason to refrain from the declaration.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: I think it's the "conscious" bit that gets me. Because while I've unthinkingly done myself and others harm, I've never done so knowingly and can't imagine choosing to do so when I would know, from the mouth of God Himself, that no greater good would come of it.
Boy, I have. Lashed out in anger for example. I knew that what I said would hurt someone and that I would regret it and said it anyway. Slept with someone just to make myself feel less lonely knowing that it was the wrong thing to do. Mostly I fail to do stuff. I am perfectly aware that God wills good for me and I choose not to heed that will everyday.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I am perfectly aware that God wills good for me and I choose not to heed that will everyday.
See, what I'm hung up on here is your use of the active verb. You don't just fail to heed. You choose not to heed. I can honestly say that I don't think I've ever made that sort of choice.
I've done things thoughtlessly, and I've done things that I thought would turn out for the best that wound up not turning out for the best, but I've never actually chosen to do something while certain that it would turn out badly.
Katie mentions "human error," but the kind of thing we're specifically talking about isn't error. It's deliberately choosing to do something that will produce a result unsatisfactory to God and, theoretically, also unsatisfactory to the individual. There's no mistake being made here; it's a completely flawless implementation of stupidity.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You are a better person than I am (and I think I am a reasonably good person). As a matter of fact you may be better than anyone I know - and I know some really great people.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I doubt it. I think, again, the issue lies in the "knowingly" bit. That's not just semantics.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Oh, I absolutely know that I shouldn't say hurtful things in anger, or that I should get my butt out of bed in time to catch the bus instead of having to pay for a cab, or that I shouldn't eat that second helping. It isn't a matter of not knowing; it is a matter of discipline.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I absolutely know that I shouldn't say hurtful things in anger, or that I should get my butt out of bed in time to catch the bus instead of having to pay for a cab, or that I shouldn't eat that second helping.
See, I dispute this entirely. I don't think you do know it, not in the same way that you know, say, addition. We're defining "know" differently.
I submit that if you knew you should get up earlier, you'd get up. But you mentally run a little equation in which the value of the extra rest exceeds the cost of the cab and the lost exercise, and stay in bed. If the equation gets it wrong, that's because you estimated those values incorrectly; in other words, you didn't know how much the extra rest was actually worth.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You underestimate my lack of discipline.
Being able to pretend I don't know (and I don't even usually bother to do that!) isn't the same as not knowing.
Sometimes I just don't care if I'm wrong. Even knowing I am going to regret it later.
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
I agree with kmbboots, here.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So what drives you, then, to sleep in late? If you know it's the wrong thing to do, and if it's not worth it to you at that time to do it, why do you do it?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It feels good. Honestly, Spock, I sometimes make irrational decisions.
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
As a student of psychology, I learned a long time ago that if I wanted to help people who wanted to change their behavior, I had to do a lot more than help them realize that their behavior was not in their own best interest. I wish simply knowing something was bad for you or others was enough to get people to never again choose to participate in self-destructive behavior.
Knowing does not equal doing. Not by a long shot.
A great example is procrastination. Ultimately, it only makes things worse. But, there is an immediate pay off, which pay off is the reason we do it. The pay off is we can for a moment avoid feeling whatever bad feelings we feel as we approach working on the project. Those bad feelings could be worrying that we might not do a good job, or that the work will be painful, or that we will disappoint others, or that we won't be able to finish what we start, etc.
By procrastinating we are actually helping those fears become reality, but as we distract ourselves or rationalize why we are procrastinating we can forget about our worries for the moment.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It feels good.
That's not an irrational decision, then, is it? If it felt BAD, it would be irrational. And if you thought at the time that it wasn't worth feeling good temporarily to pay more for the cab, it would be irrational if you did.
But clearly you DO think it's worth paying more for the cab to feel good for a little while longer, or you wouldn't do it; otherwise, you've lapsed into some kind of temporary cab-taking insanity (and even insane cab-takers usually manage to come up with some reason to justify to themselves why they should take a cab before they take the cab). Now, your assessment of that worth might be heavily biased and rendered inaccurate by your condition or mood, but that just means you weren't fully aware of the value of your choice. It doesn't mean that you deliberately chose the BAD thing; it just means that you're lying to yourself about what you consider bad.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Nope. I can't weasel out of it that easily. Sometimes I am just lazy. I know this is wrong and I do it anyway. I am not an idiot. I know that I will regret the decision.
Sometimes I say things in anger that I know I shouldn't. I am just angry.
Really.
And (back to God) people who, according to the Bible, had more "close encounter" with God argued with God more than once.
edit to add: And even if I were weasely enough to be able to pretend that I was making a good for the short term decisions, I know that God wants what is good for me in the long term.
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
This threat is an inspiration.
God.. The Gods. Everywhere we look, they are there, looking at us. The Hindus say, you go to a Temple to be looked at by God, not to look at God.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Sometimes I say things in anger that I know I shouldn't. I am just angry.
Wow. That's a level of arationality that I really can't fathom. I've never been that disengaged from my brain. Even when I'm angry, I'm thinking "I'm angry because..."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I know why I'm angry. Didn't mean to give you the impression that I was angry for no reason. I am sometimes angry enough not to care that I am doing something wrong.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I am sometimes angry enough not to care that I am doing something wrong.
See, again, that's the leap I'm not quite getting. If you know at the time that it's wrong, why do you do it? I'm just not grasping how you're able to act without self-justification.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Tom, are you by any chance an off-the-chart T on the Myers-Briggs scale?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Simple human weakness, Tom. Some of us have it.
I really do have a hard time believing that I am the only person you know of that will occasionally fail to do what she knows is the right thing. Even so, you are just going to have to take my word for it.
[ May 24, 2006, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Tom, are you by any chance an off-the-chart T on the Myers-Briggs scale?
No. I'm ENFP, usually, although only mildly N and P.
But I think I'm hung up on Kate's definition of "know," because I can't think of any situation in which I'd know something was bad and do it anyway. I think she's using a much less powerful version of the word.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Know = understand, "get", be aware, recognize, be sure of.
Tom, here is something that may help you in your life. Pay attention:
Other people may have different experiences than you have. Because you don't have those experiences does not mean they don't have them. Really.
Here's another one:
Your ability to imagine or understand something is not a required condition for its existence. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
See there. I knew I shouldn't be snarky and I did it anyway.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:understand, "get", be aware, recognize, be sure of.
I think I'm being considerably more stringent in my definition of "be sure of" than you are. We had similar problems when you were talking about being able to "perceive" God without thought, sensation, or experience; the definition of "perception" that I use is dependent on those things.
In the same way, being sure of something is for me a considerably higher standard than it appears to be for you.
Because from where I'm standing, what you're saying is "I didn't want to do this, wasn't compelled to do this, and yet chose to do it anyway."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What I am saying is that I wanted something that I knew was wrong, wasn't compelled to do it, choose to do it anyway.
Here are different examples (since you seem disinclined to believe me):
Smokers who already have lung cancer or heart disease and still smoke. People who are morbidly obese.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Kate is expressing exactly how I feel.
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
Tom: Why don't you define "know" for us, the way you are using it? Then take us through kmb's example of people who choose to smoke while knowing that they are making themselves seriously ill by doing it using your definition of "know".
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)