So Clive Candy's thread about how people are unaffected by events which seem to be religious experiences has got me thinking.
Is the existence of god after the Judeo-Christian tradition a sufficient condition for worship? Basically this. If we assume that an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being/force exists, does this lead to the conclusion that we should worship said being?
Related question, if we add the assumption that said being requests worship, does that lead to the conclusion that we should worship said being?
My opinion is no, to both questions. The existence of something infinitely more powerful than me (no matter how good) doesn't affect my actions. If said being wants me to worship it, I suddenly have a much worse opinion of it. If a being of infinite power cares that tiny little me spends a significant portion of my tiny (in comparison) life saying how wonderful god is, then I think that's really petty. And so petty a being doesn't deserve my worship.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raventhief: So Clive Candy's thread about how people are unaffected by events which seem to be religious experiences has got me thinking.
Is the existence of god after the Judeo-Christian tradition a sufficient condition for worship? Basically this. If we assume that an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being/force exists, does this lead to the conclusion that we should worship said being?
Related question, if we add the assumption that said being requests worship, does that lead to the conclusion that we should worship said being?
My opinion is no, to both questions. The existence of something infinitely more powerful than me (no matter how good) doesn't affect my actions. If said being wants me to worship it, I suddenly have a much worse opinion of it. If a being of infinite power cares that tiny little me spends a significant portion of my tiny (in comparison) life saying how wonderful god is, then I think that's really petty. And so petty a being doesn't deserve my worship.
Well, if the omniscient, all-power god demands worship, I would be loathe to displease it for safety reasons.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If you are positing the "superman in the sky" version of god, then I would agree with you. That is not my understanding of God. And I think that you will find that most religions, even the "superman in the sky" religions also include "good" in their description of God.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Most include in their definition "by definition" but haven't given me a really concrete sense of the things God has actually done that made him good.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Oops, Raventhief, I see you did include omnibenevolent. Raymond, I think creating the universe is generally at the top of the list. Loving us is also on the list. And if you are looking at scripture from a more tribal point of view, their are all sorts of things - freeing the Israelites from slavery, aid in battle, manna and so forth.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I think you may have a different understanding of "worship" than we do. We serve God. That's often translated as "worship". And we do so because we share the same goals. And we share the same goals because we think God is omnibenevolent and omniscient.
(Note that omnibenevolent doesn't mean that every individual is always going to appreciate things. My 9 year old daughter doesn't get it when I do things for her own good sometimes either.)
Posted by Raventhief (Member # 9002) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: Well, if the omniscient, all-power god demands worship, I would be loathe to displease it for safety reasons.
OK, so it's a worship or die situation. Not interested. That makes god a bully.
As to the things god has done which are good, KM, is it that god is good, so he/she/it is worthy of worship?
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I could never get over this particular bit. God knows all, everything that was is and will be. We have free will, it is the major differance between us and angels. Free will allows us to deny God and commit attrocities against His children. But God already knew all of that now didnt He, the fall of Lucifer, the sins of Eve, the sacrifice of his son Jesus.
If we play tic-tac-toe Im reasonobly certain what will happen, so I dont play that game. Now that being said wtf is God's reason for all of this? or is rationalization reserved for divinity as well.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
So I haven't posted in probably about a year or so, but I still read the boards fairly often. But I thought I'd offer my own solution to question posed. I really don't know why since we all know how religion threads go anyways. But I thought it might be something I could answer. In the interest of clarity I will say that this semester I'm completing my BA in Religious Studies and a BA in Psychology from a private Christian school, and in the fall I will be starting my Masters work also in religion. I know I've spoken in years past about religious matters, but I will also say that I've become a lot less fundamentalist since then as I've gone through my education.
The answer to the first question- why does God deserve our worship is intimately connected with the answer of AchillesHeel's question.
God is love. That's where it begins in my eyes. God's very ontology is defined by that of love. God doesn't NEED our worship. There's nothing that we do that he needs. He's so much bigger and greater than us. A lot of people will say that God created humanity so that we could worship him. That's simply not true. Or we exist so that God could have relationship with something. But God's trinitarian nature makes for this unnecessary, since God exists in relationship within himself. He was never lonely, he could live in relationship with just himself. The way I look at it is like this: God thought of us. He conceived of you and me in his mind. He began to think about us and loved us. In fact he loved us so much that he brought us into creation. He brought about creation for our sakes, not for his. God loved us so much that brought us into existence so that we can know God's love for us. I really do think that that is the goal of existence. It's also important to note that simply by the creation of the Other God, for the sake of love, gives up some sense of his Godhood. Before creation was all that was, but afterwards there existed Him and something else. But it was for the sake of love.
So he created the physical reality, and an intelligible one at that, in which humans might exist. A physical reality that was able to be manipulate on some level by the beings which inhabited it.
God desires what Martin Buber describes describe an I-thou relationship rather than an I-it relationship. Simply put, the I-thou relationship is where one values the relationship for the subject itself. I value my friendship with you because I value you yourself. An I-it relationship is: I value you because of the function or role that play. Thus, God gave us free will. God might have all foreknowledge, but God exists outside of time and experiences all time like an Eternal Present or an Eternal Now, and thus our free will is able to be maintained since he doesn't ordain the future.
Then comes the problem of evil. God doesn't create evil, and good exists independently of evil. But God did create the potentiality of evil by virtue of the existence of free will. Thus came the downfall of man. Man sinned, and evil came upon the world.
Yes, God does allow evil to exist but only because he cannot give free will and take it away at the same time. That's just stupid. The real issue of sin and evil is not some sort of divine legal status as guilty or not guilty. It was simply that humans needed to be reconciled back to God. Sin should be understood in relational terms. It's not merely some checklist of behaviors, but rather is anything that is outside of His will. Since God is love- anything outside of his love is inherently unloving since God cannot do anything unloving. And evil is understood the result as a privation of that perfect relationship between God and man.
Thus the God-Man came into being. A being that was both fully man and fully God allowed for the reconciliation of God and man. And through the death of the God-man all of mankind was now able to enter into the right relationship with God. And as we move further and further into that relationship, we become more and more loving. The very ontological status of a person can be fundamentally changed as a result of what happens in the God-Man relationship.
So I worship God because of what he has done for, what he is doing on my behalf, and what he will continue to do for me. God's love is not contingent on my worship of him, but when I worship God I allow Him to do what he wants with me. And I am transformed into a better human being. I love God because he first loved me, and he has brought me into existence to demonstrate His love for me.
Posted by Raventhief (Member # 9002) on :
OK, I'll do my best to start from the same set of assumptions you are using. I probably won't be completely successful, but I'll try. Starting with Achilles, if angels have no free will, then the original sin, the war in heaven beginning with Lucifer was not an act of rebellion, but simply the angel Lucifer following what it was intended to do by god. Since man's sin was instigated by Lucifer, then again, god's will was involved.
Shawshank, the problems of free will and evil are not so easily explained. Free will implies the choice to do either A or B. If it is known what I will choose, then there is no choice. The evil defense you proposed implies that all evil stems from man and his free will. As a counterexample, I would point to Haiti and other natural disasters.
Now, your statement that the goal of existence is to know god's love, this seems an easy thing to do. I know my friends' and family's love from how we treat each other and how we feel near each other. From god I feel... well nothing. I see no god, I hear no god. It would be an easy thing (it seems) for god to treat us all in a way that shows love, or even to show us his existence, if that was the entire goal. There must be more to it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raventhief: If it is known what I will choose, then there is no choice.
Untrue. If I know you loathe vanilla and love chocolate, you still have the choice to pick the vanilla cone and not the chocolate one. Every bit as much as if a stranger walked up and gave you the same two choices.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Raventhief: If it is known what I will choose, then there is no choice.
Untrue. If I know you loathe vanilla and love chocolate, you still have the choice to pick the vanilla cone and not the chocolate one. Every bit as much as if a stranger walked up and gave you the same two choices.
Your knowledge of his hypothetical loathing is not the same as knowledge of his impending choice.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
Raventhief, for your first objection I would just reiterate what rivka said. There are people in my life that I know really well- and I pretty much know what they are going to say and do before they do it. That doesn't mean that they don't choose to do it. It comes to how God experiences time- I think God views all moments as being simultaneous and is inherently timeless and thus observes all events at the same time. Thus he can know all without destroying free will.
As for natural disasters and things like that- I would say that the problem of sin entering into the world was originally a position of man's unloving desire. When evil entered into the world at all (acting through men as a medium of sorts) it disrupted the entirety of creation. Now I mean that on an ontological level rather than a Pat Robertson "well they prayed to the devil..." type of crap you hear.
As for love, I'd argue that it's inherently not a feeling. It's inherently a commitment rather than some sort of emotional state. I think that God does show his existence to us and does demonstrate his love for us, sometimes its just difficult to see.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
What's kind of weird is that I don't believe in free will in the first place, but if I were to assume that it DID exist, I have no problem with the notion of an all knowing God knowing what you're going to choose without messing with free will at all. Knowing that a choice is going to be made is no different from knowing that any other action is going to occur. If I get a time machine, go to the future, and see who wins the next Superbowl, and then come back, that doesn't mean that the players don't have to work just as hard.
I still think that the entire idea of free will is nonsensical, but that's another story.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
Rivka, what you're describing is knowledge of a preference not knowledge of what will happen. Its one thing to know someone LOVES chocolate ice cream and its another to jump in a time machine and watch them pick chocolate ice cream at the store.
I agree with the idea that since the angels don't have free will, if Satan existed, then all of his actions are in accord with how he was created. But I also prefer the idea that Satan isn't evil but rather fulfills an important function of a tester of mortal man. He's more like that horrible math teacher in high school who loved pop quizzes. When someone fails a test, its no one's fault but their own.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shanna: Rivka, what you're describing is knowledge of a preference not knowledge of what will happen. Its one thing to know someone LOVES chocolate ice cream and its another to jump in a time machine and watch them pick chocolate ice cream at the store.
And if you did, they would have every bit as much free choice as they did before you jumped into the DeLorean.
Posted by Raventhief (Member # 9002) on :
If Satan is the tester and evil is the result of failing the test, then without the test, there is no evil. If Satan is merely fulfilling it's function, and it's function comes from god, then (by transition) god is the source of all evil (as well as good).
I also don't believe in a free will because despite all my trying, I still believe in a clockwork universe. Because, if it is "known" (100% certainty, no other possibility) what the outcome of a choice will be, then, definitionally there was no choice, there was only one possibility. The vanilla vs chocolate example, you might look at my choice and say, "I knew you were going to pick that," but you didn't. You simply believed something which turned out to be correct.
Shawshank, ahhh original sin. All evil derives from the choice Adam and Eve made to partake of knowledge rather than remain children. If we take the story literally, man exercised his god-given free will and damned himself by doing so. How is this different from giving man free will and then saying, "you can't use it."?
And then your final point. God does show himself and his love to us. You just need to want to see it. If this is the goal of existence, why make it difficult? God set up this universe, so it could have been easy to see.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:I also don't believe in a free will because despite all my trying, I still believe in a clockwork universe. Because, if it is "known" (100% certainty, no other possibility) what the outcome of a choice will be, then, definitionally there was no choice, there was only one possibility. The vanilla vs chocolate example, you might look at my choice and say, "I knew you were going to pick that," but you didn't. You simply believed something which turned out to be correct.
Say you have a perfectly random coin. You flip it. It has a 50/50 chance of being heads up until the moment you flip it. You flip it three times, and the results are heads, tails, heads.
Years later you invent a time machine and go back to watch those three coin flips. They're just as random as they always were. The only difference is this time you know which way the randomness will turn out. I don't think there's anything contradictory about that. (I'm pretty sure there are events in the universe at the quantum level there are truly random, and I'm reasonably sure we have theoretical ideas on how time travel could actually work in some specific circumstances, so this discussion might have an actual scientific answer. Any resident physicists have any concrete insight here?)
My take on free will is that either decisions are deterministic, or they are (to some degree) random. I honestly cannot fathom how you could possibly "make" a choice that wasn't already determined by who you are as a person. If you have two identical children born/raised in identical circumstances, and one makes a good choice and one makes a bad choice, what does that possibly say about them? Either one somehow had an inclination towards badness that the other did not, or the choice was random. Neither amounts to something you can blame them for.
Random choices would be relevant to discussions involving omniscience or time travel but they still don't impress me as anything special about the human race that makes it worth putting us through extra suffering, especially if you can rewrite physics on a whim.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Because, if it is "known" (100% certainty, no other possibility) what the outcome of a choice will be, then, definitionally there was no choice, there was only one possibility.
This does not necessarily hold true, depending the nature of time and whether or not God is bound by it like humans are.
In a similar way, if it is "known" (100% certainty, no other possibility) what the outcome of a choice was, then it does not follow that there was no choice, that there was only one possibility.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
I remembered an article by R. Adams about "middle knowledge" and free will. Trying to find it I came across the excerpt below (excerpted from an article at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/). I think this a nice presentation of the argument for the incompatibility of free will and an omniscient god. The article goes on to examine the attacks on the individual premises (e.g. 1 is attacked on the grounds that god does not exist in time).
quote: Basic Argument for Theological Fatalism
(1) Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge] (2) If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past] (3) It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2] (4) Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of “infallibility”] (5) If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle] (6) So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5] (7) If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of “necessary”] (8) Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7] (9) If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities] (10) Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
God teaches us to worship because it's how we can become happy, not for his sake at all, but for ours. When we spend our time in thankfulness for the blessings we have, and glorying in the beauty of the universe, bathing in universal compassion, and in awe of his infinite love, doing our best to render loving service to all his children, well that is true happiness. That's why he teaches us to worship. Because it exalts us, not him. He's already exalted, you know?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I'm much happier as an atheist than I ever was worshipping.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: I could never get over this particular bit. God knows all, everything that was is and will be. We have free will, it is the major differance between us and angels. Free will allows us to deny God and commit attrocities against His children. But God already knew all of that now didnt He, the fall of Lucifer, the sins of Eve, the sacrifice of his son Jesus.
If we play tic-tac-toe Im reasonobly certain what will happen, so I dont play that game. Now that being said wtf is God's reason for all of this? or is rationalization reserved for divinity as well.
My mom would sometimes leave the room when I was a child, and then come back in to find my hand in the cookie jar, even though I knew all of the reasons I wasn't suppose to do that. She would come right back in and catch me, because she knew I was going to do that. I always did.
That in no way meant she made me do it, or that I didn't have the choice not to do it. It didn't invalidate my free will.
Just because God knows what happens next doesn't mean he made those choices for us.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
...So why is there free will?
It's one thing to say that x knows that y will do something, even with 100% certainty; you can certainly say that x's knowledge doesn't lead to y's decision. But if x made y, if x's knowledge of y's actions is a direct result of having cast the first card from which the entire game is forecast...
I've come to my own hypotheses, for what they're worth, but I'm curious what others' take is before I share them. Why create a creature that is capable of willfully choosing that which is evil or that which will make it unhappy?
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
It's much more comforting for me to believe that there's nobody in charge up there.
So if I ever found out that someone created this mess *on purpose*, my first reaction would be, "You've got some 'splainin' to do!"
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Sterling, because having the ability to fail makes success worth something -- worth quite a lot, actually.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Why create a creature that is capable of willfully choosing that which is evil or that which will make it unhappy?
Because it's funny?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*sigh*
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: And if you did, they would have every bit as much free choice as they did before you jumped into the DeLorean.
But it's not just time travel and foreknowledge we're talking about. If we're talking about a god, not only did that god know what your decision was going to be, it created you in such a way that you would make that decision.
To me, it looks quite a bit like the hypothetical god decided what it wanted me to do and then created me to do those things. Or am I wrong?
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
To be perfectly fair, it seems rivka and alot of others don't believe that's correct.
It's fun to use such a thing, but since we're talking about a hypothetical omnipotent entity, is it not possible it didn't create you in a manner that means you must make that decision?
Heck, in this universe we can't even predict subatomic particles accurately. Who says the decisions we make are any more determined?
At least, hypothetically.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: Heck, in this universe we can't even predict subatomic particles accurately. Who says the decisions we make are any more determined?
In the universe as it appears to be, I agree with you. But in a universe that was created by an ALL-KNOWING and ALL-POWERFUL being, I seriously can not see how those things couldn't be determined.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
However, on the other hand, the ability to fail for the sake of making success sweeter is... an interesting view.
But if a person were to do it the way many seem to believe it was done, with success being heaven and failure being eternal torment, they'd be thought of as a sadistic monster.
Then again, when I did believe in God's existence, I would have pointed out that God wasn't what a lot of people seemed to believe He was anyway. (as seen by the existence of all those Protestants out there!)
Regardless, making success sweet is one thing. But the world isn't fair about it either way. There isn't any equity here, not really. People don't have the same chance as each other, for various reasons.
Without a properly fair starting point from which to proceed, success and failure don't have much meaning anyway, and failure becomes all the more cruel.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
God is good, and Satan is bad... but if God made Satan and entirely allowed him to fall already knowing it would happen then God is to blame for evil. This point has already been made but bare with me. How is God good when He is responsible for evil? if I put a plasic tube into a hamster cage and use it to remotely flood the enviroment with water but come in at the last second to save the hamster, am I good? Does omnipitance place God above morality and the clash of right and wrong for no more reason than He made them in the first place? the more I think about the more it just seems like an eighth grade science project.
Posted by Raventhief (Member # 9002) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: In a similar way, if it is "known" (100% certainty, no other possibility) what the outcome of a choice was, then it does not follow that there was no choice, that there was only one possibility.
You just said "if there is no other possibility, it does not follow that there is only one possibility." And I have to argue that that is wrong of logical necessity. "No other" and "only one" are logically equivalent.
Posted by Raventhief (Member # 9002) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: [QUOTE]Say you have a perfectly random coin. You flip it. It has a 50/50 chance of being heads up until the moment you flip it. You flip it three times, and the results are heads, tails, heads.
But this is the entire question. We say that a coin toss is random because there are 2 outcomes and we from our perspective cannot predict the outcome with any statistical meaning. However, a perfect observer could do so. If it was known beforehand precisely the force and angle with which the coin was struck, the exact atmospheric conditions, and the exact moment and angle at which the coin would be caught, then figuring out which side the coin would land on would be a trivial exercise. An omniscient being is a perfect observer, by definition.
Similarly, I believe (despite my best efforts) that we humans are equally slaves to our desires. If the sum total condition of a man's life, ancestry, and the conditions around him were known with perfect precision, down to a subatomic level, I believe it would be known what he would do before he did it. However, I believe such knowledge is beyond human capacity. It would not be beyond the capacity of the perfect observer (god), again by definition.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:However, a perfect observer could do so. If it was known beforehand precisely the force and angle with which the coin was struck, the exact atmospheric conditions, and the exact moment and angle at which the coin would be caught, then figuring out which side the coin would land on would be a trivial exercise.
This is not agreed on. In particular, strong modern interpretations of quantum mechanics involve an element of true randomness -- unpredictable even given initial conditions. While a coin flip would be largely deterministic (since quantum effects could generally be integrated out), it would not be wholly so.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Yes, God does allow evil to exist but only because he cannot give free will and take it away at the same time. That's just stupid.
Do you believe God blinded Saul, Shawshank?
----------
quote:In particular, strong modern interpretations of quantum mechanics involve an element of true randomness -- unpredictable even given initial conditions.
Are we willing to grant that the traditional Judeo-Christian God, as He is normally imagined, is not victim to the Uncertainty Principle? Or is He not in fact truly all-knowing?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Maybe he has a Heisenberg compensator (Either that or we truly have an answer to the question, "What does God need with a starship?")
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raventhief: Is the existence of god after the Judeo-Christian tradition a sufficient condition for worship? Basically this. If we assume that an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being/force exists, does this lead to the conclusion that we should worship said being?
Related question, if we add the assumption that said being requests worship, does that lead to the conclusion that we should worship said being?
I think the problem with this question is how we're defining "worship." I was always uncomfortable with the image of a God who wanted me to bow down and lick his feet. And I figured if He really wanted that, then maybe I didn't want Him. That's the images I drum up when I think or worship, though, so I tend to answer no to both questions.
Or worship could just mean that we follow his supposed laws and generally try to be nice to one another.
I'm not entirely convinced that the existence of God or lack thereof really matters in how we live our lives and treat one another.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
TomD: it is implicit in Raventhief's argument that everything is deterministic, not that the complete observer (and incredibly fast calculator) is not subject to the uncertainty principle. Indeed, he's making the argument that nothing is actually random, not that god can somehow see around randomness (whatever the heck that means).
I suspect there are numerous adherents to traditional Judeo-Christian philosophy who would not attribute to god the ability to know truly random things before they happen, but only the ability to know the probabilities. All-knowing isn't well-defined; more specifically, not everything we can talk about being "known" with language is something that actually can be known, just like the fact we can say the words "the set of all sets that do not contain themselves" does not mean such a beast can exist.
Posted by Raventhief (Member # 9002) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: This is not agreed on. In particular, strong modern interpretations of quantum mechanics involve an element of true randomness -- unpredictable even given initial conditions. While a coin flip would be largely deterministic (since quantum effects could generally be integrated out), it would not be wholly so.
I'm well aware of quantum mechanics. I daresay I know more about it than most. And the only honest thing you can say about quantum mechanics is that it's a statement of ignorance. I feel your statement should read "quantum mechanics involve an element of true macroscopic randomness -- unpredictable with current levels of science." It is entirely possible (likely, IMO) that even quantum randomness is predictable given a thousand more years of scientific advance. Quantum (or even sub-quantum) level instrumentation should make it possible to predict even what we now call "quantum randomness".
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I went out of my way to say "perfectly random coin" because I was making up a hypothetically perfectly random situation. I'd have used some specific example from quantum mechanics except I don't know any specific examples from quantum mechanics. The coin is not victim to atmospheric pressure and gravity, it is random simply because I say it is.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:I'm well aware of quantum mechanics. I daresay I know more about it than most. And the only honest thing you can say about quantum mechanics is that it's a statement of ignorance. I feel your statement should read "quantum mechanics involve an element of true macroscopic randomness -- unpredictable with current levels of science." It is entirely possible (likely, IMO) that even quantum randomness is predictable given a thousand more years of scientific advance. Quantum (or even sub-quantum) level instrumentation should make it possible to predict even what we now call "quantum randomness".
Some do interpret it that way. That is not, however, the mainstream interpretation. The mainstream interpretation right now is that some things are truly random. Part of the reason is, deterministic interpretations tend to require large numbers of additional particles that have, for some reason, gone long-undiscovered. This is not a statement of ignorance, but a statement of the strongest interpretation that fits the known facts.
If you know more about it than most, then you should know you're taking a viewpoint that is not in the scientific mainstream. It is entirely possible, just not one you should treat as obviously true, like you are doing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I suspect there are numerous adherents to traditional Judeo-Christian philosophy who would not attribute to god the ability to know truly random things before they happen, but only the ability to know the probabilities.
But when you expand it -- into, say, a Schroedinger's Cat situation -- I suspect there are very few Christians who'd say that God is unable to tell whether the cat is alive or dead.
Posted by Raventhief (Member # 9002) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: If you know more about it than most, then you should know you're taking a viewpoint that is not in the scientific mainstream. It is entirely possible, just not one you should treat as obviously true, like you are doing.
Don't do this. You're making it personal. Yes, my interpretation is not the mainstream one, I'm well aware of that, and I couched my entire statement in opinion language. That doesn't make anything I said less true. Quantum mechanics is an incomplete science. "Most likely interpretation" is itself an admission of incomplete knowledge. Just like every science in history, it will stand as our interpretation until there is a better one, and just like every science in history, it will fall when the next one comes along. All I say is that another one will come, and quantum uncertainty will become less uncertain.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
If one can say that God is "outside of time", and stipulate that even though God knows everything we will do it doesn't overcome our free will somehow, then one could just as easily say that God is "outside of randomness" and in the same way sidestep any notion that God may be unable to perfectly predict our choices due to the inherent randomness in the universe.
In short, all this God stuff, being completely unscientific and without a shred of evidence on way or another, is nothing more than a thought experiment, and as such can turn out any way a person wants, based on the rules and loopholes one sets up for God.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Sterling, because having the ability to fail makes success worth something -- worth quite a lot, actually.
Certainly that's an reasonable conclusion with regard to what we see in life. But I can't help but feel it sets up a "stone so big God can't lift it" problem: if God is omnipotent, surely He could make effortless, inevitable success equally meaningful in any way that matters?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Don't do this. You're making it personal. Yes, my interpretation is not the mainstream one, I'm well aware of that, and I couched my entire statement in opinion language. That doesn't make anything I said less true. Quantum mechanics is an incomplete science. "Most likely interpretation" is itself an admission of incomplete knowledge. Just like every science in history, it will stand as our interpretation until there is a better one, and just like every science in history, it will fall when the next one comes along. All I say is that another one will come, and quantum uncertainty will become less uncertain.
You may very well be right (in fact, I think you probably are), but that doesn't change the fact that for right now, the best science we have says that certain things in the universe probably are truly random. And regardless, by making the argument that nothing unpredictable exists at all, you're undermining your original point, which was that the observation of an outcome eliminated the possibility of alternate outcomes. Not that alternate outcomes were impossible to begin with.
If we're starting with the assumption that randomness and/or free will exists (and quantum mechanics right now seems to indicate that the former is at least possible), then it doesn't matter whether the universe happens to also be a 4 dimensional landscape that lets an omniscient being see which random events will end up in which direction.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Sterling, I have no problem with the notion that certain consequences are inherent in themselves, and omnipotence doesn't change that.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:if God is omnipotent, surely He could make effortless, inevitable success equally meaningful in any way that matters?
Not if the meaning is intrinsic to effort and evitability.
(I think there are theological systems that do this question a reasonable amount of justice considering their starting premises, but it's all rather pointless if you don't grant the premises. Balancing an equation can be a fun exercise but the results aren't always meaningful.)
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Not if the meaning is intrinsic to effort and evitability.
The notion that a truly omnipotent god is limited by things like certain qualities being intrinsic to certain other qualities strikes me as rather paradoxical. Granted, I am FINE with a religion that says "God is omnipotent within certain contraints." Lots of my issues with Christianity would be eliminated if they'd just be content for God to be "very very very powerful" without being genuinely omnipotent.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
LDS believe in a constrained God- He must act within the rules of the universe. Omnipotent is defined to have all power that can be had, not all powerful. Or so is my understanding of LDS doctrine. Posting it occurs to me I don't actually have a citation on that.
Posted by Raventhief (Member # 9002) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: And regardless, by making the argument that nothing unpredictable exists at all, you're undermining your original point, which was that the observation of an outcome eliminated the possibility of alternate outcomes. Not that alternate outcomes were impossible to begin with.
No, this was not my original point. My original point actually had nothing to do with free will. Yay for thread migration. However, I don't believe that observation eliminates options, I believe that observation means there were no options to begin with. Schroedinger was wrong (IMO). The cat is alive or the cat is dead, our knowledge has NO effect. Free will is a statement of ignorance. Since we can't know ALL the conditions which go into a decision, we can't predict the outcome. So we observe a person making a choice. IF we knew ALL the conditions, we would see that there was no choice. God would be an observer who knows all the conditions, so, I believe, the existence of God would imply no free will. If there is no observer, that doesn't imply there is free will, that's a logical fallacy.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
By "original point" I meant "original point since the beginning of the free will sub-discussion." Your first statement I can find to that effect is "Free will implies the choice to do either A or B. If it is known what I will choose, then there is no choice." And it is this statement that I disagree with.
Say you have a small 4 dimensional universe spring into being. For whatever reason, the universe pops into existence with a ball on a hill, and with a bizarre weather phenomenon that causes a slight breeze to change according to a truly random chance. Every 20 seconds, the wind abruptly becomes either left-facing or right-facing, no matter which way it was originally blowing. It also comes with some rudimentary Newtonian physics which includes gravity.
The universe also begins with two observers, a 3 dimensional one (who sees events in the universe progress chronologically), and a 4 dimensional one (who sees the entire history of the universe at once). Both observers for some reason are also created with full understanding of their universe's laws of physics.
As soon as the universe is created, it follows its own rules and the observers see the results. The three dimensional one sees the ball begin rolling down the hill as soon as the universe is created. He knows that the ball has to roll down the hill because of gravity. He knows about the weird weather phenomenon that shifts the breeze every 20 seconds in a random direction, so he knows that in twenty seconds the ball's trajectory HAS to shift slightly either to the left or the right.
The four dimensional observer sees the entire journey of the ball at once - she sees the ball begin rolling downward because the rules of the universe said it had to. She also sees the ball turn left twenty seconds after the universe's creation. This is not because the laws of the universe said the ball had to turn left, but because the laws of the universe said the ball had to turn either left or right, and it just so happens that it turned left.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:the existence of God would imply no free will
Technically, free will could still exist, but it would be absolutely meaningless.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Technically, free will could still exist, but it would be absolutely meaningless.
Only if you create a very specific kind of God.
Hobbes Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
That's true, certainly, but also meaningless; ANY of the attributes we've been assigning to our hypothetical gods are only valid if you're creating a specific type of hypothetical God. Believe me, the Mormon version of God doesn't make all that much more sense just because He isn't as Godly as the Greek Orthodox one.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:God would be an observer who knows all the conditions, so, I believe, the existence of God would imply no free will. If there is no observer, that doesn't imply there is free will, that's a logical fallacy.
Actually, I think this might be true but not quite for the same reasons you think it's true.
A 3 dimensional God who is able to perfectly predict the future might invalidate free will (since being able to perfectly predict it implies that it's predictable, i.e. you can't make choices that surprise him). A four dimensional God who doesn't predict but merely knows the future (because to him the past, future and present all occur at the same time) doesn't say anything about predictability.
However, because that 4 dimensional God also CREATED the universe (in the same singular eternal moment in which he did everything), and automatically knew how everything was going to play out because he sees the future, the fact remains that that God would have created a universe knowing that Adam was going to eat the apple and that Hitler was going to kill 6 million jews, and that some random child in Africa was going to end up getting shot no matter what choices they made, and this God chose to create the universe he created anyway.
I can see the viewpoint that that particular execution of Creation/Free Will was fairly meaningless.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:That's true, certainly, but also meaningless; ANY of the attributes we've been assigning to our hypothetical gods are only valid if you're creating a specific type of hypothetical God. Believe me, the Mormon version of God doesn't make all that much more sense just because He isn't as Godly as the Greek Orthodox one.
Well obviously I disagree, but without any arguments from you I'm not sure on what level our disagreement is happening...
Hobbes Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Tom- I can see your point, but I personally don't believe worshiping God is the logical thing or should be the logical thing. Religion isn't about evidence and reasoning for me, so the lack doesn't matter. But, I figured it was worht putting out there that all Christian's don't view omnipotent the same way (of course, then we can get into the are LDS Christians debate). Posted by Raventhief (Member # 9002) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: By "original point" I meant "original point since the beginning of the free will sub-discussion." Your first statement I can find to that effect is "Free will implies the choice to do either A or B. If it is known what I will choose, then there is no choice." And it is this statement that I disagree with.
Say you have a small 4 dimensional universe spring into being. For whatever reason, the universe pops into existence with a ball on a hill, and with a bizarre weather phenomenon that causes a slight breeze to change according to a truly random chance. Every 20 seconds, the wind abruptly becomes either left-facing or right-facing, no matter which way it was originally blowing. It also comes with some rudimentary Newtonian physics which includes gravity.
The universe also begins with two observers, a 3 dimensional one (who sees events in the universe progress chronologically), and a 4 dimensional one (who sees the entire history of the universe at once). Both observers for some reason are also created with full understanding of their universe's laws of physics.
As soon as the universe is created, it follows its own rules and the observers see the results. The three dimensional one sees the ball begin rolling down the hill as soon as the universe is created. He knows that the ball has to roll down the hill because of gravity. He knows about the weird weather phenomenon that shifts the breeze every 20 seconds in a random direction, so he knows that in twenty seconds the ball's trajectory HAS to shift slightly either to the left or the right.
The four dimensional observer sees the entire journey of the ball at once - she sees the ball begin rolling downward because the rules of the universe said it had to. She also sees the ball turn left twenty seconds after the universe's creation. This is not because the laws of the universe said the ball had to turn left, but because the laws of the universe said the ball had to turn either left or right, and it just so happens that it turned left.
Fair enough, I was really just joking with the thread migration bit.
In the scenario you set up, I agree, the 4D observer has no effect. However, your scenario doesn't involve choice or free will. An event defined as random is, of course, random. But choice is not defined that way. Free will may be defined as free, but there's no proof that it exists. If it can be known (completely, no possibility of failure) what the "choice" will be, then it was not a choice.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Free will may be defined as free, but there's no proof that it exists. If it can be known (completely, no possibility of failure) what the "choice" will be, then it was not a choice.
I happen to think that the idea of Free Will is nonsensical, so in a sense I agree with you. However, if somehow Free Will DID exist, with all the attriutes and significance that people ascribe to it, I think it would follow similar causality rules that randomness does. If Free Will exists then the universe contains a mechanism by which outcomes can be unknown until they occur.
If that's the case, then the existence of a 4-dimensional observer does not change that fact. Free Will might be logically impossible, but if that's the case, it's impossibility has nothing to do with the existence or lack thereof of omniscient 4D observers.
[ February 16, 2010, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Free will doesn't exist in a vaccum. Each individual free will is altered/constrained by the free will of everyone else. The random child in Africa is shot because the shooter used free will (and a gun) to shoot him. The shooter's free will is impacted by the conditions determined by the various decisions made by lot of other people present and past using their free will.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Free will doesn't exist in a vaccum. Each individual free will is altered/constrained by the free will of everyone else. The random child in Africa is shot because the shooter used free will (and a gun) to shoot him. The shooter's free will is impacted by the conditions determined by the various decisions made by lot of other people present and past using their free will.
This is obviously true in the world as it exists now. However, a truly omnipotent God could have set up the world in such a way there is a limit to how our actions can affect each other.
(Again, that doesn't apply to any religion that puts some actual constraints on God's power)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: However, a truly omnipotent God could have set up the world in such a way there is a limit to how our actions can affect each other.
Assuming that He believes that to be a beneficial thing.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: However, a truly omnipotent God could have set up the world in such a way there is a limit to how our actions can affect each other. ower)
But there is such a limit. No matter what I do, I can't consign you to eternal suffering.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer as to why that would be a bad thing.
I have no qualms about suffering existing in the world to some degree. What I have extreme qualms about is the massive and unfair distribution of suffering throughout the world, much of which has nothing to do with free will in the first place. (Disease, quakes, etc). A God who could have set up the rules in the first place so that we couldn't slaughter and torture each other and decimate entire civilizations such that the children in those civilizations have no ability to make good decisions at all... and then chooses not to create such a world, is not a God who I'd consider good in the slightest.
Posted by happymann (Member # 9559) on :
I personally believe in an eternity that isn't solely defined by our existence on Earth. It seems to me that if only this life mattered, then definitely a lot of the natural disasters that plague humankind seem unfair/mean when looking at an omnipotent God.
However, I believe that this is merely one act in a multiple-act play (and not just three acts as some believe). We might be in act 2 or act 7 right now and varying stages of free will are involved in each and every act.
I also believe that God is a 4th dimension (or greater) being who is considering all acts, therefore earthquakes and diseases are just one part of the puzzle, as opposed to calamities that unfairly snuff out life that had to be snuffed.
I do believe that our actions on Earth are important, definitely, but this isn't the ONLY stage that matters. I choose to worship God because some time in act 27 (1 Corinthians 2:9) the wisdom and knowledge I gained here (and during other acts) will be very relevant.
I hope this makes sense. I don't post a lot, as you can see.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
My issue with that is, regardless of how small a percentage of existence our mortal life makes up, why the disparity in levels of suffering, period? If we're going to go on to have a happy, eternal existence, why do some of us need to suffer through years of agony first? Why do some of people get to spend their lives sitting like a bump on a log without ever even realizing we SHOULD be getting up and doing stuff?
When you're talking about suffering on the order that suffering takes place on planet earth, it's not enough to just say "trust us, every piece of suffering here somehow ends up being necessary to our well-being."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It seems to me that if only this life mattered, then definitely a lot of the natural disasters that plague humankind seem unfair/mean when looking at an omnipotent God.
I would really like to know why the suffering of, say, completely innocent children is part of some plan involving multiple universes.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Actually, so would I.
The fact that I accept His actions does not mean that I understand them.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
See, that's just one example of an action I'm not likely to accept until I understand it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I know.
But you believe you have the right to judge God. I just reserve the right to question Him.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Any entity responsible for the suffering that God would presumably be responsible for is on a daily basis (I'm just talking Earthquakes, disease, etc, not even getting into free will) is not in a position to expect people to give it the benefit of the doubt.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I wouldn't let my child get run over by a car to teach him a lesson, or teach some other person a lesson, or learn the meaning of loss or any such nonsense.
Why am I more moral, loving, forgiving, and kind than God?
[ February 17, 2010, 12:17 AM: Message edited by: MightyCow ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I don't agree with several of the premises y'all are starting with. So it's not surprising I disagree with where you end up.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Could you clarify which premises you don't agree with?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I have no interest in a debate. Past evidence tells me that MC -- and you, to a lesser degree -- tend more towards debating theists than conversing. *shrug* I pass.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Fair enough. To be honest I'm surprised this thread stayed (relatively) civil for as long as it did.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I tend to be disappointed in religious "conversations" because they require me to allow the other participants to hand-wave any illogical, inconsistent, or unsupported premises they like.
That's all well and good, if all we're interested in is both feeling happy about our beliefs, but it doesn't really lead to greater understanding, or allow us to get anywhere.
In my belief, we're all unicorn-robots and the sky is made of invisible clam sauce. But this is a conversation, so no pointing out any failings in that position.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Speaking of which, Robot Unicorn Attack is a pretty awesome game.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:the existence of God would imply no free will
Technically, free will could still exist, but it would be absolutely meaningless.
That doesn't make any sense.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I wouldn't let my child get run over by a car to teach him a lesson, or teach some other person a lesson, or learn the meaning of loss or any such nonsense.
Why am I more moral, loving, forgiving, and kind than God?
You aren't. I would let my daughter miss a meal to teach her a lesson. If our lives in this world are only a small fraction of our whole existence, getting run over by a car might be the equivalent.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:That doesn't make any sense.
No, see, it does. God could very easily set it up so that we are free to choose things within the parameters He establishes. But since He knows the consequences of our choices and has complete control over those parameters, free will is meaningless; assuming He has ever intervened to establish those parameters, nothing happens without his intention.
A completely non-interventionary God preserves the value of free will, of course, but that rules out the possibility of miracles. Or answered prayers.
quote:If our lives in this world are only a small fraction of our whole existence, getting run over by a car might be the equivalent.
"Honey, let me hit you with this hammer. I swear, in the life that might be waiting for you on the other side, of which this one is only a pale shadow, you'll benefit enormously."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I tend to be disappointed in religious "conversations" because they require me to allow the other participants to hand-wave any illogical, inconsistent, or unsupported premises they like.
That's all well and good, if all we're interested in is both feeling happy about our beliefs, but it doesn't really lead to greater understanding, or allow us to get anywhere.
In my belief, we're all unicorn-robots and the sky is made of invisible clam sauce. But this is a conversation, so no pointing out any failings in that position.
It might be helpful for you to look into the concepts of transcendent/immanent God. Another idea is that our being able to understand something is not a condition of existance. You might also consider the idea that "creation" is not something that happened but something that continues to happen. Also, you seem to think that God and people are more separate than I do. We are part of God as God is part of us. If we don't like the way "he" has arranged something, we have the responsibility to fix it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If we don't like the way "he" has arranged something, we have the responsibility to fix it.
Well, only one member of this partnership can raise people from the dead and stop the sun in the sky. Why doesn't he do his part to fix it?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Now, Tom. You know you are being a tad literal for me. And maybe we just can't do those things yet.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:
quote:the existence of God would imply no free will
Technically, free will could still exist, but it would be absolutely meaningless.
Why? What makes something meaningful or meaningless?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
The argument in question was "are we actually free to make our own choices or does God make our choices for us?" In this context, it was generally agreed upon that making our own choices is more meaningful than having them made for us. (i.e. if we're going to go out of our way to say "free will" exists, it is only meaningful if our will is actually free).
God, being all powerful and omniscient, is able to see exactly what the results will be of any initial circumstances he creates. Because he can create any given set of initial circumstances, and yet he chose to create THIS particular set of circumstances, he effectively HAS made all of our choices for us.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
But God indirectly making my choice for me doesn't necessarily mean I wasn't also free to make my own choice. Tom seemed to recognize this in that quote - but then he says free will is meaningless if it works that way.
I would think the important free will question is: "Am I free to make my own choice?" If I am free to make my own choice, I don't see why it matters that much whether my choice was predetermined by God or anyone else. The most meaningful part of free will is my ability to choose, not my ability to choose indeterminately.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Tom seemed to recognize this in that quote - but then he says free will is meaningless if it works that way.
Because it is meaningless. Your choice has no effect on the outcome, because you are not capable of choosing differently. The outcome is known. That you "chose" it is absolutely irrelevant; you could not have chosen anything else.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
But Tom, you don't believe we have free will, do you? It's the only logical conclusion if you believe in a deterministic universe and that our minds are no exception to this. The existence of an omniscient entity doesn't really change that. But you wouldn't say your own daily "choices" are meaningless, right?
Meaning is subjective importance. The most you can say is it has no meaning for you, but that doesn't seem like it would make a whole lot of sense either.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Meaning is subjective importance.
Not if we're going to pretend that free will is possible, which is the constraint under which this conversation is happening.
If "meaning" is indeed purely subjective, then sure, making a "choice" has personal meaning. But if that's how youre going to define "meaning," then free will doesn't exist anyway. Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:But if that's how youre going to define "meaning," then free will doesn't exist anyway.
That is how I define "meaning", and I don't think free will exists (or, for that matter, that that really means anything), but I'm not getting why the former determines the latter. The nonexistence of free will and the meaningfulness placed on its supposed existence don't seem necessarily related to me. Consider the meaning you give to "choice".
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: You aren't. I would let my daughter miss a meal to teach her a lesson. If our lives in this world are only a small fraction of our whole existence, getting run over by a car might be the equivalent.
In order for your analogy to be correct, you'd have to make her never eat again, because once you get killed by a car, you don't get to learn any more lessons in this life.
I also wouldn't condemn anyone to an eternity of torment for making a mistake in a small fraction of their whole existence, but most Christians believe that God does just that.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: You aren't. I would let my daughter miss a meal to teach her a lesson. If our lives in this world are only a small fraction of our whole existence, getting run over by a car might be the equivalent.
In order for your analogy to be correct, you'd have to make her never eat again, because once you get killed by a car, you don't get to learn any more lessons in this life.
I also wouldn't condemn anyone to an eternity of torment for making a mistake in a small fraction of their whole existence, but most Christians believe that God does just that.
That's a classic strawman argument. I don't know any Christians who believe God will condemn people to an eternity of torment for making a mistake in a small fraction of their existence.
We have quite a few Christian on this forum. Do any of you believe that is a fair representation of your beliefs?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I don't know any Christians who believe God will condemn people to an eternity of torment for making a mistake in a small fraction of their existence.
Really? Because I know a bunch. It's actually Baptist doctrine, in fact.
Let's try wording it differently: how many Christians believe you go to Hell if you don't accept Christ in this lifetime?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Not me. Unless they want to. Also, "Christ" needs more explaining and "hell" is not a place one goes to. It is the rejection of a relationship with God and people can choose that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, yes. There are in fact many varieties of "Christian." I suspect that certain demographics are more likely to post on an OSC fansite than others. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I don't know any Christians who believe God will condemn people to an eternity of torment for making a mistake in a small fraction of their existence.
Really? Because I know a bunch. It's actually Baptist doctrine, in fact.
Let's try wording it differently: how many Christians believe you go to Hell if you don't accept Christ in this lifetime?
I have no idea. I know only that I've never met one who actually believes that. It's a strawman argument.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Have you never actually lived in the American south or Midwest?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: ... Let's try wording it differently: how many Christians believe you go to Hell if you don't accept Christ in this lifetime?
This might be helpful, although the "eternal" part would probably be slightly lower than straight belief, I would note that belief in Hell is a comfortable majority across all of broad American demographics without even splitting out religious people.
quote:From 1997 to 2004, belief in hell has ranged between 56% and 71%. The 2004 data reveal that 70% of Americans overall believe in hell, while 12% are not sure and 17% do not believe in hell. Again, the percentage is much higher among regular churchgoers: 92% of those who attend weekly believe in hell, as do 74% of those who attend nearly weekly and just half (50%) of those who attend church seldom or never.
Belief in hell varies only somewhat among other demographic categories, although likelihood to believe is somewhat lower across the board than was the case for heaven. With regard to political orientation, 83% of Republicans say they believe in hell, vs. 69% of Democrats and 58% of those who say they are independent. Americans with a high school education or less are slightly more likely to believe in hell than those with at least some college education (77% to 65%). Again, Southerners (83%) are more likely to believe in hell than are Westerners (61%), Easterners (64%), and those in the Midwest (66%).
In 1988, Gallup asked Americans who said there is a heaven where people who had led good lives are eternally rewarded what their chances were of going there themselves. Seventy-seven percent rated their chances as "good" or "excellent," while 19% rated them as "only fair" or "poor." That same year, Americans who said there was a hell where people who led bad lives without being sorry are eternally damned were quite optimistic that they would not be going there themselves. Only 6% said their chances of going there were good or excellent, and 79% said their chances were poor.
quote:Because it is meaningless. Your choice has no effect on the outcome, because you are not capable of choosing differently.
That later statement is not true, though. If A determines B's choice and B's choice determines C, then it is true that B's choice has an effect on C AND that B could not have chosen differently given A. "B->C" follows from "A->B->C".
So, the question is which half of that statement is the part that is the most "meaningful" aspect of free will: 1) That my choice has an effect on the outcome. or 2) That I could have chosen differently.
#2 is not that important, because it is just a question of theoretical possibilities. I don't care what may have happened in alternative possible realities, except perhaps when deciding who to ultimately blame for something.
#1 IS important, because we care about having some sort of influence on the lives we lead and the world around us. We naturally care that our choices have some influence on the world. When I donate money to a good cause, I don't care whether there is some complicated set of conditions in the world that determined I would give money, but I do care that my choice to give money will help that good cause.
Therefore, if it is possible to have #1 without #2, I would say it is still meaningful, because #1 is the more meaningful aspect of free will.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I have certainly heard about people who believe that. It is not what I was taught in any of the various mainstream churches I have attended. Nor was it what I taught when I was responsible for teaching such subjects for either Catholic or Congregational or Methodist churches.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
My best friend believes I am going to hell.
That said, at the time MightyCow was replying to Lisa who is Jewish, and I'm pretty sure the argument is completely meaningless in that context.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: My best friend believes I am going to hell.
Oh, you might find this interesting then which I found when looking for the previous. Less reliable though
quote:Most people said the doomed are "acquaintances," but almost 25% said the hell-bound are members of their own family. Women were more likely to consign family members to hell, quite possibly because they spend more time with the family. ... In what may be a worrisome sign of the state of family relations, those who thought their family members were headed down were very likely to think of hell as a place of fire and torment. Oh, and eternal. It was unclear whether the respondents were expressing a prediction or a wish.
This is a classic strawman. The problem isn't that you've made a claim about others positions which is 100% incorrect, its that you have simplified others beliefs to the point of obsurdity. Yes a lot of people believe in Hell, but those believes are alot more nuanced than the claims you are making. I don't care how many studies you pull out or how many quotes you post, its still a strawman. It resembles your opponents beliefs but lacks the substance there of.
We have a lot of Christians here. Some who are even baptists, southerners and fundamentalists. If you aren't just arguing against a strawman, you should be able to find one person here to agree that "God will assign people to eternal torment for mistakes made in a tiny fraction of their existence" is an accurate summary of their beliefs. Until you have, you are arguing against strawmen and not real people.
So much for your alleged objectivity.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
You who?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: You who?
Pretty much all of you who are making claims about what religious people believe. Your claims reveal you have only a very shallow and heavily biased understanding of others religious beliefs.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Ah, so you're going to fight what you perceieve as shallow claims by making shallow and broad claims. Sounds like a fun progression Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
It is very common in well-educated, one-sigma-above-average theists who don't strictly believe anything, but have a belief in their own belief, to assume that most Christians are like them. This is a mistake. Mucus has shown studies; what have you got other than your assertion that it ain't so?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Yes a lot of people believe in Hell, but those believes are alot more nuanced than the claims you are making. I don't care how many studies you pull out or how many quotes you post, its still a strawman. It resembles your opponents beliefs but lacks the substance there of.
Despite my present atheism I was a member of multiple churches and church-related youth groups when I was younger and the belief that mere non-believers (no active misbehavior was necessary) would spend an eternity in hell was quite common. Being "saved" was the buzzword that indicate that you were no longer hell-bound and there was constant encouragement to "save" our friends and family members lest they suffer eternal torment for not accepting Christ as their personal savior.
The Catholic Church, the largest Christian denomination, is pretty clear that anyone not baptized will end up in hell and only recently admitted some uncertainty on that point in the case of infants that die before baptism.(being subject to original sin alone) I was actually baptized Catholic, so I guess I'm good there.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:We have a lot of Christians here. Some who are even baptists, southerners and fundamentalists. If you aren't just arguing against a strawman, you should be able to find one person here to agree that "God will assign people to eternal torment for mistakes made in a tiny fraction of their existence" is an accurate summary of their beliefs. Until you have, you are arguing against strawmen and not real people.
Ron?
If we're talking about what "religious people" in general believe, I assure you I know plenty of real people, that I have had real conversations with (over multiple years), who believe that I do not believe in Jesus, ergo I am consigned to eternal torment. Period. And they are part of a large congregation that taught them that. And I live in New York.
However, we're not talking about Christians in general here. Whether this is a debate or a conversation, it's between a few specific people about some specific theological principles. Part of the problem is that I don't think any two theists here (in this thread) actually believe exactly the same thing.
I've been assuming the constraints on this conversation are:
1. God exists (somehow we learn this with a degree of certainty such that it is not up for debate). 2. We (probably) all mean a God who is at least 4 dimensional and has at least one aspect that exists outside time. 3. Free will exists. 4. An afterlife of some kind exists.
A fair number of people also seem to be implying that God is intelligent, compassionate, and omnipotent. Some theists have already clarified that in their beliefs, "omnipotent" has its own qualifiers. I think that the theists whose beliefs include both compassionate and true, no strings omnipotence are obligated to provide a definition of goodness that makes sense of the widescale (and as I've said is my main beef, unfair, disproportionate) distribution of suffering in the world.
I get that suffering can be an important learning tool. I do not get how infants crushed to death by natural forces before they had a chance to learn anything would benefit the world at all. "Teaches us compassion" is the argument I hear the most of, but the fact is my life hasn't really been changed to any significant degree by Haiti than it was already changed by knowing that the Holocaust or Katrina happened. And those are the well publicized catastrophes that everyone knows about.
[ February 18, 2010, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: how many Christians believe you go to Hell if you don't accept Christ in this lifetime?
I have no idea. I know only that I've never met one who actually believes that. It's a strawman argument. [/QB][/QUOTE]
... what?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
The Rabbit: You may not like the idea, you may not know many, or any Christians who believe that, but I assure you that it is not a strawman. I personally have known dozens of Christians who believe that people who are not in their particular church are going to hell. I have interacted with many more people on a casual basis, spoken to them online, seen them on TV, read their books or articles, who believe the same.
It is far from a strawman.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: The Catholic Church, the largest Christian denomination, is pretty clear that anyone not baptized will end up in hell and only recently admitted some uncertainty on that point in the case of infants that die before baptism.(being subject to original sin alone) I was actually baptized Catholic, so I guess I'm good there.
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: The Rabbit: You may not like the idea, you may not know many, or any Christians who believe that, but I assure you that it is not a strawman. I personally have known dozens of Christians who believe that people who are not in their particular church are going to hell. I have interacted with many more people on a casual basis, spoken to them online, seen them on TV, read their books or articles, who believe the same.
It is far from a strawman.
If its not a strawman, find me just one Christian who will say that it is an accurate representation of their beliefs. Just one.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: [QB]
quote:We have a lot of Christians here. Some who are even baptists, southerners and fundamentalists. If you aren't just arguing against a strawman, you should be able to find one person here to agree that "God will assign people to eternal torment for mistakes made in a tiny fraction of their existence" is an accurate summary of their beliefs. Until you have, you are arguing against strawmen and not real people.
Ron?
Then ask him. If he is willing to post here that this statement is an accurate representation of his beliefs, then OK, you've understood 1 Christian accurately.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: It is very common in well-educated, one-sigma-above-average theists who don't strictly believe anything, but have a belief in their own belief, to assume that most Christians are like them. This is a mistake. Mucus has shown studies; what have you got other than your assertion that it ain't so?
That isn't just true of religious "brights", its true of nearly all religious people even those that self identify as literalists.
quote:The new atheists assume that believers, particularly fundamentalists, take their sacred texts literally. Yet ethnographies of fundamentalist communities (such as James Ault's Spirit and Flesh) show that even when people claim to be biblical literalists, they are in fact quite flexible, drawing on the bible selectively—or ignoring it—to justify humane and often quite modern responses to complex social situations. -- Jonathan Haidt (Sociologist and professed Atheist)
Religious beliefs are simply far more nuanced than New Atheists are willing to conceded. You have removed the nuances that are critically important to the believers, that is what makes your claims "strawmen".
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And KoM thinks I am somewhat dim anyway, so that theory falls apart. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: ... The Catholic Church, the largest Christian denomination, is pretty clear that anyone not baptized will end up in hell ...
Depends in part on your interpretation of this
quote: God's mercy and love are great, but those who reject him should know that hell "exists and is eternal," Pope Benedict XVI said. ... "Christ came to tell us that he desires all of us in heaven and that hell, which isn't spoken about much in our time, exists and is eternal for those who close their hearts to his love," the pope said.
quote:Originally posted by MattP: The Catholic Church, the largest Christian denomination, is pretty clear that anyone not baptized will end up in hell and only recently admitted some uncertainty on that point in the case of infants that die before baptism.(being subject to original sin alone) I was actually baptized Catholic, so I guess I'm good there.
quote:Bishops, as successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord, to whom was given all power in heaven and on earth, the mission to teach all nations and to preach the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain to salvation by faith, baptism and the fulfilment of the commandments.
This seems to imply that baptism is a necessary component of salvation.
Also, neither of those links directly addresses hell.
Even laying the specific doctrine aside, the belief was common when I attended a Catholic church. Perhaps that was a regional thing, or Catholics have become more liberal in their view on the subject since then.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: You aren't. I would let my daughter miss a meal to teach her a lesson. If our lives in this world are only a small fraction of our whole existence, getting run over by a car might be the equivalent.
In order for your analogy to be correct, you'd have to make her never eat again, because once you get killed by a car, you don't get to learn any more lessons in this life.
No, I think the analogy was fine as I wrote it. Not that it's a good analogy. My math teacher used to say that there's no such thing as a good analogy, but it suffices. Think of it as a domain thing. In the larger domain, which God sees, but we generally don't in this life, ending a life here is probably less than withholding a meal. In the smaller domain, which is all I have to work with vis my daughter, withholding a meal is pretty harsh.
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I also wouldn't condemn anyone to an eternity of torment for making a mistake in a small fraction of their whole existence, but most Christians believe that God does just that.
So... you want me to say that most Christians are wrong? Okay, consider it said. Actually, they all are, but we were only discussing this one issue.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Depends in part on your interpretation of this
I would say it depends entirely on your interpretation of this and religious people almost never interpret it they way atheists do (or even the way members of competing Christian sects do). That's what makes the atheist argument a strawman. Its a gross distortion of what people really believe.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Seriously? You are seriously not willing to accept at face value that I have talked extensively with my friend about this for 10 years and that I know what I'm talking about? I'm reminded of a time when Mucus didn't believe that you had friends who preferred Chinese food made in Canada (or something to that effect), and went on to explain why you might have misinterpreted certain cultural norms. You got pretty upset.
Which is it? Am we allowed to reference friends with beliefs that don't mesh with each other's assumptions or not?
My friend has several beliefs that are nuanced and that I respect to some degree. He's also in the process of changing some beliefs now that he's going to a christian school where he's meeting some professors who are able to articulate their reasonings for different interpretations of Christianity. I'm not 100% sure what he currently believes about everything (since right now he doesn't know for sure either) but I know as much as I know anything what he believed about Hell between the years 1998 and 2007.
I was generally on the side of "getting into the beliefs of Christians who aren't even participating in this thread is silly." I never said that anyone in this thread believed this. But if you are seriously going to say that there are no Christians, period, who believe that if you don't accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior then you are doomed to Hell for all eternity, you are simply flat out wrong.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: how many Christians believe you go to Hell if you don't accept Christ in this lifetime?
I have no idea. I know only that I've never met one who actually believes that. It's a strawman argument. ... what?
I certainly have met Christians who believe that. Some of them are quite nice about it, too. Like, "You seem like a good and moral person. But if you don't accept JC as your lord and savior, then yeah, you're going to burn eternally. That's why you should join us."
Yeesh. Sounds like a protection racket.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I was generally on the side of "getting into the beliefs of Christians who aren't even participating in this thread is silly." I never said that anyone in this thread believed this. But if you are seriously going to say that there are no Christians, period, who believe that if you don't accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior then you are doomed to Hell for all eternity, you are simply flat out wrong.
I sincerely doubt that this statement actually captures the proper nuances of anyone's beliefs. I've heard about people who hold such beliefs all my life but whenever I've actually had the chance to discuss it with one of them I find that their beliefs are far more nuanced than that.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:religious people almost never interpret it they way atheists do
That you believe this is astonishing to me. Of course not all Christians believe this, perhaps not even a majority, but there are absolutely large swaths who do. I have personal experience having it preached to me.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ... religious people almost never interpret it they way atheists do (or even the way members of competing Christian sects do)
I don't think the main difference is differing interpretation leading to different views, I think the main difference is emphasis with both groups looking at the same thing. Example: people do simultaneously think this and this. Consequently, some people will look at that and say that the highlighted group is racist, some will say that they aren't. Both groups are looking at the same data but emphasize different things.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by MattP: ... The Catholic Church, the largest Christian denomination, is pretty clear that anyone not baptized will end up in hell ...
Depends in part on your interpretation of this
quote: God's mercy and love are great, but those who reject him should know that hell "exists and is eternal," Pope Benedict XVI said. ... "Christ came to tell us that he desires all of us in heaven and that hell, which isn't spoken about much in our time, exists and is eternal for those who close their hearts to his love," the pope said.
Pope Benedict is not the Church.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:I sincerely doubt that this statement actually captures the proper nuances of anyone's beliefs. I've heard about people who hold such beliefs all my life but whenever I've actually had the chance to discuss it with one of them I find that their beliefs are far more nuanced than that.
Well, count yourself lucky I guess. How many Christians have you met you DID say something to the effect of "If you do not accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior you will go to Hell," and what nuance did they later add to it?
Are you talking more nuanced than that? Because that level of nuance (coupled with the belief that God is genuinely omnipotent and therefore had no particular necessity to set up the multiverse that way) did not impress me. The only particular nuance my friend had to add was that a) Hell wasn't literally fire, but that it was the absence of God's love. b) Throughout your life, God gives you the chance to develop a relationship with him. If you haven't done so by the time you die, then your eternal soul (eternal being different from immortal, in that it is truly timeless) will be left outside of a relationship with God. Because outside of this life there will be no Time, there will be no further chances to accept God's love. And it just so happens that existing apart from God's love is agony.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I thought there was something with the governor of Texas about this: (from here)
quote:Gov. Rick Perry covered his face in prayer as Cornerstone Church pastor John Hagee and son Matthew, right, prayed for the good of the political candidates in attendance at the service in San Antonio on Sunday. Throughout much of the 90-minute service at Cornerstone Church, Mr. Perry sat on the red-carpeted stage next to the Rev. John Hagee. Mr. Perry was among about 60 mostly Republican candidates who accepted the invitation to be introduced to the megachurch's congregation of about 1,500, plus a radio and TV audience.
"If you live your life and don't confess your sins to God almighty through the authority of Christ and his blood, I'm going to say this very plainly, you're going straight to hell with a nonstop ticket," Mr. Hagee said during a service interspersed with religious and patriotic videos.
Asked afterward at a political rally whether he agreed with Mr. Hagee, the governor said he didn't hear anything that he would take exception to.
He said that he believes in the inerrancy of the Bible and that those who don't accept Jesus as their savior will go to hell.
[ February 18, 2010, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Does it matter whether there exists a large swath of Christians who believe it, if the people you are discussing it with don't?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Pope Benedict is not the Church.
This is true. My mom identifies Catholic but doesn't believe my dad or I are going to Hell. But since all we're looking for (apparently) is ONE Christian who believes the nonbelievers get eternal damnation, the Pope certainly counts.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Does it matter whether there exists a large swath of Christians who believe it, if the people you are discussing it with don't?
As I've said, no. But now the conversation has apparently shifted to Rabbit absolutely refusing to believe these people exist and various people trying to convince her otherwise. I'm not even sure what the last point we were actually talking about was.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I've starting some trolling of my Christian and formerly-Christian acquaintances to make sure that I'm not just crazy. My first response:
Me: <redacted>, you belonged to an evangelical church, right? Was mere unbelief sufficient grounds for damnation? (i.e. accept Jesus as your personal savior or you're going to hell)
The so-called "Romans Road" is used as an outline: http://worshippingchristian.org/accept_jesus.html Romans 10:9,10 "...If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead, you shall be saved; for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation."
I've got another inquiry into a religious discussion email group at work with a number of evangelical members. I'll report back when/if I get some replies there.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I'd go back to crosswalk.com and ask there, but I was banned after a week for preaching Islam.
EDIT: (it was crosswalk.com, not belief.net. My bad)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Raymond, where does he get this part?
quote:If you haven't done so by the time you die, then your eternal soul (eternal being different from immortal, in that it is truly timeless) will be left outside of a relationship with God. Because outside of this life there will be no Time, there will be no further chances to accept God's love.
Also, I wasn't refuting that there was one person (clearly some people do believe that, it just isn't the universal belief that atheists tend to portray it as being); I was refuting this:
quote:
The Catholic Church, the largest Christian denomination, is pretty clear that anyone not baptized will end up in hell and only recently admitted some uncertainty on that point in the case of infants that die before baptism.(being subject to original sin alone) I was actually baptized Catholic, so I guess I'm good there.
The Catholic Church is not at all clear that anyone not baptized will end up in hell. I don't know any priests (though I am sure there are some) who teaches that. In fact, when mentoring and teaching people who are converting to Catholicism, it is one of the first things that we correct.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:If you haven't done so by the time you die, then your eternal soul (eternal being different from immortal, in that it is truly timeless) will be left outside of a relationship with God. Because outside of this life there will be no Time, there will be no further chances to accept God's love.
I think that element of the belief is something that was derived from the Bible as opposed to actually stated in the Bible. For various reasons he assumes (as I think we mostly were in this thread) that the holy ghost aspect of God exists outside Time, and that by extrapolation, so do our souls. Since you can't make choices outside of time it was a relatively logical conclusion that you only had this temporal life to choose God.
This wasn't something he told me until we had been talking about it for several years. So I assume it was either that his understanding of his church's teachings deepened (The difference between "Eternal" and "Immortal" isn't particularly easy to explain to many adults, let alone 12 year olds), or he found an interpretation that was more satisfying to him which meshed with his existing beliefs.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Raymond, where does he get this part?
quote:If you haven't done so by the time you die, then your eternal soul (eternal being different from immortal, in that it is truly timeless) will be left outside of a relationship with God. Because outside of this life there will be no Time, there will be no further chances to accept God's love.
Also, I wasn't refuting that there was one person (clearly some people do believe that, it just isn't the universal belief that atheists tend to portray it as being); I was refuting this:
Fine, so can we all just agree that the belief is 1) reprehensible and 2) common among Christians and move on already?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: I've starting some trolling of my Christian and formerly-Christian acquaintances to make sure that I'm not just crazy. My first response:
Me: <redacted>, you belonged to an evangelical church, right? Was mere unbelief sufficient grounds for damnation? (i.e. accept Jesus as your personal savior or you're going to hell)
The so-called "Romans Road" is used as an outline: http://worshippingchristian.org/accept_jesus.html Romans 10:9,10 "...If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead, you shall be saved; for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation."
I've got another inquiry into a religious discussion email group at work with a number of evangelical members. I'll report back when/if I get some replies there.
There is an enormous difference between what he says and what you said. Perhaps if you can see that, you can begin to understand my point. Note how he dodges the question you ask and instead talks about what is required to be saved. His emphasis is on being saved and what a person needs to do to be saved. He never actually addressed what happens if you aren't "saved". I recognize its a subtle difference, but it is not an unimportant or inconsequential difference.
There are also a lot of people making strawman claims about what I've said. I never claimed that no on actually believes all unbelievers will burn in hell. That hasn't ever been my claim. Mighty Cow said.
quote:I also wouldn't condemn anyone to an eternity of torment for making a mistake in a small fraction of their whole existence, but most Christians believe that God does just that.
I said this was a classic strawman argument, it does not accurately capture what most Christians believe. It doesn't even accurately summarize what your evangelical friend said above. Ask him this question.
On another forum, some one said most Christians believe God condemns people to an eternity of torment for making a mistake in a small fraction of their existence. Is this an accurate assessment of your beliefs?
If people will agree, then I stand correct.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:There is an enormous difference between what he says and what you said.
OK, a followup:
Me: So, don't believe in Christ = eternity in hell? Or is there a third option? Him: Yes, eternity in hell. Eternal damnation.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Raymond,
"Since you can't make choices outside of time..." Right. Why not? (I am not so much asking you, it just never seemed logical to me.
swbarnes2, of course, I just gets aggravating when it is presented as a universally held Christian belief.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:On another forum, some one said most Christians believe God condemns people to an eternity of torment for making a mistake in a small fraction of their existence. Is this an accurate assessment of your beliefs?
I'm fine to say that "most Christians" is unspported, though I'm still firmly of the belief that a very large number of Christians belief it. Evangelicals in particular.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Have you never actually lived in the American south or Midwest?
Heh. I live in the Midwest. A nice blue city in the midwest where we elect liberal politicians and I work for a university. Envy me.
Well, you don't have to as you pretty much do as well.
I lived in the South for 10 months, didn't talk religion with the natives, and got out as soon as possible. *shudder*
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:On another forum, some one said most Christians believe God condemns people to an eternity of torment for making a mistake in a small fraction of their existence. Is this an accurate assessment of your beliefs?
I'm fine to say that "most Christians" is unspported, though I'm still firmly of the belief that a very large number of Christians belief it. Evangelicals in particular.
Then ask the question on the evangelical site and see how many agree that this is what they believe. I know that is how you understand their beliefs. I know that one can argue that it is a logical consequence of what they believe.
I just sincerely doubt that they would agree that this is their belief. Prove me wrong.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:As I've said, no. But now the conversation has apparently shifted to Rabbit absolutely refusing to believe these people exist and various people trying to convince her otherwise. I'm not even sure what the last point we were actually talking about was.
Fair enough.
Yes, I've found that if someone absolutely refuses to believe something exists, and you can't point to an indisputable example of it in the room, it can be very difficult to get them to believe it exists, no matter how confident you are that it does in fact exist. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I just sincerely doubt that they would agree that this is their belief.
Ah. But this is not a strawman.
A strawman is not something that someone would not admit to believing. It is something that someone does not believe.
If you believe a) that all children are cute; and b) that all cute things should be hit in the face with hammers; and c) that all hammers should be made of metal, it is not a strawman to say that you believe all children should be hit in the face with metal hammers -- even if you would never say this yourself. In fact, if you would not say this yourself, and are horrified by the logical inevitability of this conclusion, perhaps you have failed to understand your own premises properly.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
I just sincerely doubt that they would agree that this is their belief.
How your sincerity germaine to the question of what other people believe?
Does sincerity now trump evidence when it comes to evaluating the accuracy of claims?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Tom, the statements in your example are straight forward and not open to nuanced interpretation. That can't be said for many religious statements.
"Accept Christ" is not a simple concept. "Hell" is not a simple concept. "Relationship" is not a simple concept. Nor is "eternity" a simple concept.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Tom, Your arguments are based on the fallacious premise that religious belief systems (or any belief systems for that matter) form some sort of logically consistent whole. But they don't.
Religion deals with those aspects of existence which are ineffable, emotional, personal and subjective. Some may find those aspects of existence unimportant, inconsequential and silly, but most people do not. Even if you find those aspects of existence important, you may still find religion an unsatisfactory way of dealing with them. I have no objection to that. But if you think religion should be analyzed as through the lens of objective reasoning, then you completely miss the point of religion all together.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
I just sincerely doubt that they would agree that this is their belief.
How your sincerity germaine to the question of what other people believe?
Does sincerity now trump evidence when it comes to evaluating the accuracy of claims?
If you don't like "sincerely", leave it out. "Sincerely doubt" is a figure of speech that means little more than "doubt" alone.
What constitutes "evidence" when we are talking about whether something is an accurate summary of a persons beliefs?
That isn't something that can be measured objectively. I have indicated what evidence I would find convincing, "Repeating the statement including key words like "torment" and "mistake" and "small fraction", and asking if the person in questions finds that an accurate summary of their beliefs.
The evidence given here so far falls short of that standard, hence I continue to doubt.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yes, yes, we all agree that mushy religions mean, like, whatever.
But it is official Baptist doctrine that people who fail to recognize Christ as the one and only God will be tormented in Hell forever. This is actually codified by the Southern Baptist Convention.
As to the nature of Hell, and whether it constitutes an eternity of literal torture or simply an "absence of God" or whatever, go ahead and do a Google search. I think you'll find plenty of people who believe the former -- again, especially evangelicals.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But if you think religion should be analyzed as through the lens of objective reasoning...
I would like to know what other sorts of lenses one might use that could still be fairly called "analysis."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
As I said, I don't doubt that at least some Baptists believe all sorts of nasty things. I just have a hard time believing in Baptists, here in my nice, mushy bubble.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Tom, Your arguments are based on the fallacious premise that religious belief systems (or any belief systems for that matter) form some sort of logically consistent whole. But they don't.
I think you will find that no atheist believes anything of this sort. Of course religions are an incoherent mish-mash of wishful thinking and contradictions; duh.
However, humans, even theists, have a strong psychological need to be, and to be seen as, consistent. And so when the inconsistencies are pointed out, theists tend to get rather defensive, and generally have rather a hard time defining just what, if anything, they actually do believe. You'll note that neither you nor kmb have said much about what you actually do believe about the nature of the non-good afterlife; rather you've both spent a lot of time asserting what other people don't believe.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Let's be fair. We already know what both Rabbit and Kate believe, and we know they don't believe in a literal eternity of torment for a minor mistake made in this lifetime.
We also know that they are not representative of Christians in this regard.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
I just sincerely doubt that they would agree that this is their belief.
How your sincerity germaine to the question of what other people believe?
Does sincerity now trump evidence when it comes to evaluating the accuracy of claims?
If you don't like "sincerely", leave it out.
The same way you leave out "Unbelievers go to hell" from the statements of Christians?
Sorry, no. That's a recipe for making mistakes, for wrongly believing that people believe what I want them to believe, what I think they should believe. I'm going to have to take you at your word, not edit what you write to suit my fancy.
quote:"Sincerely doubt" is a figure of speech that means little more than "doubt" alone.
Not really. Sincerely means something. Something that has nothing to do with evidence. You are emphesizing how strongly you beleive your conclusion. But that's not evidence of its accuracy, and you know that. How seriously do you take global warming denialists who "sincerely" think scientists are all out to steal our SUVs?
quote:What constitutes "evidence" when we are talking about whether something is an accurate summary of a persons beliefs?
You look at what people do, and what they say. If they say, for instance, that they believe that unbelievers go to hell, then that's probably what they believe, or pretty close to it. Do you really think, for instance, that Fred Phelps is lying? Or doesn't understand his own beliefs?
Look up some stuff about the Left Behind series. Premise there is that everyone who doesn't accept Jesus goes into the lake of fire. And they are not unpopular books.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What I believe...and "believe" in this case is clearly without "evidence"...
I believe that we are part of something larger (God) and that does not end with the death of the body. How that manifests, how much we change, I don't know, but I believe it will be good. I believe that we can choose to be in relationship with God or not. I don't see why that choice would have to be set in stone at the moment of death. I believe that God wants to be in relationship with us and that if we also choose that, God it plenty smart enough not to be stymied by technicalities even if I am not as smart.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Lisa: You're right, I used the wrong analogy for your purposes.
I wouldn't flood the whole world except for a boat full of animals or kill everyone in a couple of towns except for some a drunk and his incestuous daughters.
[ February 19, 2010, 05:26 AM: Message edited by: MightyCow ]
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
79% of Americans believe that there will be a Judgment Day, where God will determine who will go to heaven, and who will go to hell.
You may disagree with me, you may disagree with the accuracy of this poll, or their methodology, but I wish you would admit that it isn't a strawman.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Mighty Cow, I do not disagree that most Christians believe in a Judgement Day, a heaven and a hell. My claim is that this is, at least for the overwhelming majority of Christians, not equivalent to believing God "condemns people to eternal torment for mistakes made in a small fraction of their existence." The latter is a strawman because it does not capture important nuances of the true belief.
Surely you can understand.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: My claim is that this is, at least for the overwhelming majority of Christians, not equivalent to believing God "condemns people to eternal torment for mistakes made in a small fraction of their existence." The latter is a strawman because it does not capture important nuances of the true belief.
May I ask which parts of that sentence are inaccurate?
Do they not believe God is the one doing the condemning?
Is the torment not eternal? Is it not torment?
Is it not in response to mistakes?
Is this life not a small fraction of our total existence?
I think all those things apply. And while they may not be as nuanced as some Christians desire them to be, that hardly makes it a strawman.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:May I ask which parts of that sentence are inaccurate? ... I think all those things apply.
I think Rabbit has said, on the record, that it doesn't matter that those things all apply and constitute a single, logical whole, because we cannot expect religious people to be capable of logical thought.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Rabbit pretty clearly did not mean "we cannot expect religious people to be capable of logical thought."
....
Regardless of whether or not some Christians hold the beliefs about hell and torment being discussed here, it is a strawman in this discussion. That's because you are going after a version of the belief that is easiest to attack rather than the best, most reasonable, most difficult to refute version of Christianity possible in your mind and in the minds of the people you are discussing it with. Yes, some conservatives believe Obama is secretly a communist, but to use that position as a refutation of conservativism is using a strawman. Yes, some liberals ARE communists, but to use that position as a refutation of liberalism is also using a strawman. Even if most liberals were communists, it would still be a strawman if neither you nor the person you were discussing liberalism with believes communism to be the strongest, most accurate, or most reasonable version of liberalism. Proving that an erroneous version of a belief is erroneous does not prove much if both parties of the discussion already believe it to be an erroneous version going into the discussion, regardless of what percentage of the rest of the world believes that error.
If this discussion is over what percentage of Christians believe in a certain description of Hell, then that's open for debate. But if we're discussing whether or not that position is a strawman in this particular discussion with these particular people on Hatrack, I'd have to think it is a strawman. At least until someone joins this discussion who holds such a belief and thinks the way the atheists here are describing it is the most accurate way to understand it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: [qb] My claim is that this is, at least for the overwhelming majority of Christians, not equivalent to believing God "condemns people to eternal torment for mistakes made in a small fraction of their existence." The latter is a strawman because it does not capture important nuances of the true belief.
May I ask which parts of that sentence are inaccurate?
Yes, but I can't answer for all or most Christians because the answers would be so varied. I will try to answer for myself.
quote:Do they not believe God is the one doing the condemning?
In my faith, the condemning is not done solely by God but by and in accordance with eternal laws which bind even God. God teaches us the laws but is no more responsible for them than your physics teacher is for the law of gravity. I know that answer isn't true for all Christians but many have some variant of that belief.
quote:Is the torment not eternal?
The difficult here is in the various possible meanings of the word eternal. In my faith (as in many others), different mistakes warrant different punishments. While we believe that God's judgement is eternal, the punishment in almost all cases does not last forever.
quote:Is it not torment?
Once again, it depends very much on what you mean by torment. The most common interpretation of "hell" I've heard from Christians is that "hell" is being banned from the presence of God. If you don't want to be in the presence of God, that's not torment.
quote:Is it not in response to mistakes?
The difficulty hear is between the difference between connotation and denotation. Mistake is misleading because is says nothing about the magnitude of the error. Its a mistake to run out of gas. Its a more serious mistake to run a red light and kill someone because you failed to properly maintain your breaks. But neither of those are even in the same category as deliberately running down a pedestrian with the intention of killing them. By strict definition, one might call them all mistakes, but that definition would not capture the most common connotation of mistake. Most commonly, when a persons says they made a mistake, they imply that they used poor judgement often because of a misconception or because they did not fully understand the consequences of their actions. Most Christians I know don't believe God will condemn people to hell for misunderstanding what he expected, only for conscious and informed rebellion against him.
quote:Is this life not a small fraction of our total existence?
No its not. This life is not small in its importance as part of our eternal existence. It may be short, but it is not insignificant or small.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:May I ask which parts of that sentence are inaccurate? ... I think all those things apply.
I think Rabbit has said, on the record, that it doesn't matter that those things all apply and constitute a single, logical whole, because we cannot expect religious people to be capable of logical thought.
You aren't that stupid Tom, stop acting like you are.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Regardless of whether or not some Christians hold the beliefs about hell and torment being discussed here, it is a strawman in this discussion. That's because you are going after a version of the belief that is easiest to attack rather than the best, most reasonable, most difficult to refute version of Christianity possible in your mind and in the minds of the people you are discussing it with.
This isn't about refuting anything. Christianity includes all that ugly stuff, and plugging your ears, and saying that your little circle of Christians rejects it doesn't change that. A view held by a substantial percentage of Christians, if not a majority, is not a strawman view of Christianity. It's certainly not the totality of Christian thought, but it's not irrelevent either.
Christianity is not defined by what you personally want us to judge it by, by what you personally think it ought to be. It consists of everything that self-labeled Christians call Christianity.
quote:Yes, some conservatives believe Obama is secretly a communist, but to use that position as a refutation of conservativism is using a strawman.
No one is using beliefs about hell as a refutation of anything! They are just stating that those beleifs are common, if not a majority opinion, and the evidence put forth so far supports that conclusion.
No one has yet argued that Christianity is false because it includes repugnant beliefs. To do so would be an example of the fallacy of consequences. And while your mind leaps to logical fallacies like a duck to water, that isn't true of every person here.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I think we are having something like 5 different arguments here by this point.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:That's because you are going after a version of the belief that is easiest to attack rather than the best, most reasonable, most difficult to refute version of Christianity possible in your mind and in the minds of the people you are discussing it with.
The most difficult version of Christianity to refute is Kate's version of Christianity, no question about it. However, her version of Christianity is distinguishable from my version of atheism only in that she calls her version "Christianity." Is it really a "strawman" to argue against some other version of Christianity, just because it's so hard to argue against hers?
--------
quote:Most Christians I know don't believe God will condemn people to hell for misunderstanding what he expected, only for conscious and informed rebellion against him.
Rabbit, are most of the Christians you know Mormons? I ask this because you are revealing a really staggering unfamiliarity with traditional Christian doctrine.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
All this back and forth about what may or may not be a strawman in "this discussion" and I've forgotten what that discussion was even about.
*goes back to reread the first page*
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
At this point I think Rabbit was unhappy with the phrasing of a particular reduction of Christian doctrine, along the lines of "God will send you to eternal torment for a small mistake", because she doesn't believe that many Christians would put it that way.
I doubt she'd object to more discrete assertions: A lot of Christians believe Hell exists, and is a rotten place to be. A lot of Christians believe that a lot of people are destined to end up in Hell. You don't have to be as bad as Hitler to end up in Hell, according to a lot of Christians.
In other words, it's mostly the characterization of what might get somebody sent to hell that is the issue. People who believe in it probably wouldn't agree that relatively insignificant mistakes get one sent there. They believe that the sort of sins that consign one to hell are dire mistakes. However, I don't know think such a belief can be justified without circular logic.
And it's the logical connection between the nature of God, human nature, the nature of hell, and who ends up there that was being questioned in the first place.
I think clarity might be out of reach.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Most Christians I know don't believe God will condemn people to hell for misunderstanding what he expected, only for conscious and informed rebellion against him.
Rabbit, are most of the Christians you know Mormons?
No.
quote:I ask this because you are revealing a really staggering unfamiliarity with traditional Christian doctrine.
At one point in my life that was true, I did have a staggering unfamiliarity with traditional Christian doctring. At that point in my life, I would have agreed with you about what most Christians believe.
Since that time, I have had the opportunity to have in depth religious discussions with people of a large number of Christian denominations. Without exception, I have found that what people actually believe is far more nuanced and far more similar to my own beliefs than I originally supposed. In addition to my own experience, I have read a large number of academic papers on religion which support that conclusion.
The challenge is that a superficial understanding of Christian beliefs is inadequate. For the most part, religious beliefs are truly ineffable -- they can not be adequately expressed in words.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"For the most part, religious beliefs are truly ineffable -- they can not be adequately expressed in words."
I don't know how your conversations with Christians and perusual of literature are relevant, then. It sounds like you're saying you have other means of knowing what they believe.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:For the most part, religious beliefs are truly ineffable -- they can not be adequately expressed in words.
I'm going to call B.S. on this. I will, in fact, say that there is no such thing as a belief which cannot be adequately expressed in words.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
"Adequate" I think would be a key word here. I might have said perfectly or completely or sufficiently. It doesn't mean that we can't come ever closer to understanding and conveying meaning - we keep chipping away at it. In fact, chipping away at it has been a major occupation for humanity for a very long time. It does mean that God is not limited by our ability to understand or express our understanding of God.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:For the most part, religious beliefs are truly ineffable -- they can not be adequately expressed in words.
I'm going to call B.S. on this. I will, in fact, say that there is no such thing as a belief which cannot be adequately expressed in words.
In addition, if one cannot express their belief in words, how can one even hold that belief?
It would mean that a person doesn't even know what they claim to believe.
edit: It seems that in that case, the best a person can do is say, "Well, I don't know what I believe, but I have some ideas what I don't believe."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:"Adequate" I think would be a key word here. I might have said perfectly or completely or sufficiently.
I think you'll find that every survey I've ever seen on the subject (and many conversations I personally have had) suggests that there are a significant number of Christians in this country about whom we might say that "people who make the mistake of not believing that Christ is God during their short, insignificant lifetime here on Earth are sentenced to an eternity of torment in Hell by God" is in fact an "adequate" description of that specific belief.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:"Adequate" I think would be a key word here. I might have said perfectly or completely or sufficiently.
I think you'll find that every survey I've ever seen on the subject (and many conversations I personally have had) suggests that there are a significant number of Christians in this country about whom we might say that "people who make the mistake of not believing that Christ is God during their short, insignificant lifetime here on Earth are sentenced to an eternity of torment in Hell by God" is in fact an "adequate" description of that specific belief.
Then we shall have to agree to disagree until you can produce an individual who agrees that your wording actually adequately describes their beliefs.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Then we shall have to agree to disagree until you can produce an individual who agrees that your wording actually adequately describes their beliefs.
Only an individual? I imagine a trip to YouTube would produce that in under 5 minutes. And if no one has done it by the time I get home tonight, I'll do it myself.
Granted, Christianity is a title taken on by so many different sects I doubt there are many beliefs we couldn't find a Christian, somewhere, to claim as their own.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:For the most part, religious beliefs are truly ineffable -- they can not be adequately expressed in words.
I'm going to call B.S. on this. I will, in fact, say that there is no such thing as a belief which cannot be adequately expressed in words.
In addition, if one cannot express their belief in words, how can one even hold that belief?
It would mean that a person doesn't even know what they claim to believe.
edit: It seems that in that case, the best a person can do is say, "Well, I don't know what I believe, but I have some ideas what I don't believe."
Oh good grief. Tons of things in life can not be adequately expressed in words, like the qualia of saltiness or the difference between feeling "joy" and feeling "pleasure". This isn't even a controversial idea.
I'm bowing out of this since its evident that you no actually interest in understanding.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Tons of things in life can not be adequately expressed in words, like the qualia of saltiness or the difference between feeling "joy" and feeling "pleasure".
We are not talking about "tons of things." We are talking about "beliefs."
I maintain that there is no such thing as a belief which cannot be adequately expressed in words.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
How is it impossible to express in words whether or not one believes in hell, and whether or not one believes that a non-zero number of humans will reside there after death?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Then we shall have to agree to disagree until you can produce an individual who agrees that your wording actually adequately describes their beliefs.
I think a sample of one is a pretty poor representation, but if that's your bar I've already met it in this thread.
quote: Me: So, don't believe in Christ = eternity in hell? Or is there a third option? Him: Yes, eternity in hell. Eternal damnation.
Having been a member of a church that preached this sort of doctrine, I can assure you that there was no ambiguity or nuance behind what "eternity", "hell", and "damnation" meant.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Beliefnet.com conducted a poll during 2006-MAY which asked "Have you personally known people you think will probably go to Hell?" Results show the division in North America between those who believe that being relegate to Heaven or Hell is dependent on one's beliefs, or behavior. Results were:
35%: No, because I don't believe in Hell. 26%: Yes because they don't have the right beliefs. 23%: Yes because of their immoral actions. 17%: No.
During 2007-JAN, Beliefnet.com conducted a similar poll asking: "Can good people outside your faith tradition attain salvation as you understand it?" Five answers were provided. Results were:
58%: Yes, fully, if they are sincere in their attempts to know or worship a deity. 3%: Yes, but not fully. 1%: No, but they are not punished. 28%: No, and unfortunately, there are consequences. 9% I don't know.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)