Thread: Purgatory: Is God, strictly speaking, necessary? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001215
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
This blog post got me thinking, but so far my thinking hasn't gone anywhere definitive. An excerpt:
quote:
Most arguments for the existence of God are a search for ... necessity. Arguments that win and become persuasive are generally grounded in some form of necessity. The argument for God’s existence is not only that He does exist, but that He must exist. Of course if there is no necessity in God, if we cannot say, “God must,” then believers can find themselves deeply unsettled, thinking that if we cannot say “God must,” then perhaps we can say, “God isn’t.”
Please read the blog post; it's fairly short (642 words). Then here are my questions: Is God's existence necessary? If not, can we "prove" it at all? If God is not "necessary" does that mean She is contingent? And if so, upon what?
[ 05. January 2015, 01:31: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Socratic-enigma (# 12074) on
:
.
I think C.S.Lewis would argue that God is necessary in order for the Universe to have meaning.
quote:
…God does not need to exist – there is no necessity in God – His existence is pure freedom.
…
To use the word “unnecessary” with regard to God is not to say that we can exist without Him. It is to say that to exist with Him, in the fullness of life to which we are called, is to live beyond necessity and to embrace God in freedom and love.
So…it is not necessary to believe in God, but in order to achieve true freedom – one must believe in him?
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If God is not "necessary" does that mean She is contingent? And if so, upon what?
Upon our believing in Her?
S-E
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If God is not "necessary" does that mean She is contingent? And if so, upon what?
Upon our believing in Her?
This reminds me of The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul. The needs and desires of people brought the ancient gods into existence, but they remain in existence long after people have stopped believing in them. They live out their long, dull years in various conditions; one is an old man at a retirement home for instance; another is destitute.
The book gave me a very strong feeling of sadness and pity.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Please read the blog post; it's fairly short (642 words). Then here are my questions: Is God's existence necessary?
I'm afraid I didn't really understand the blog.
But I can think of at least one reason God's existence is necessary.
Posted by Socratic-enigma (# 12074) on
:
quote:
"Thor - " said Kate.
"And I'm going to put right all the things you made happen
so I'd be afraid of getting angry. The poor girl at the airline
check-in desk that got turned into a drink machine. Woof! Wham!
She's back! The jet fighter that tried to shoot me down when I
was flying to Norway! Woof! Wham! It's back! See, I'm back in
control of myself!"
"What jet fighter?" asked Kate. "You haven't told me about
a jet fighter."
"It tried to shoot me down over the North Sea. We had a
scrap and in the heat of the moment I, well, I turned it into
an eagle, and it's been bothering me ever since.
I was sitting in the middle of a crowded train and laughed so hard I nearly fell off my seat...
.
Perhaps you're right; a world without the capacity to believe in something more, something greater than ourselves - something better.
I don't know
A rather unsatisfactory answer.
S-E
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
The blog post doesn't fit with what I believe - as I don't think anything would exist without God - as S/he holds the whole caboodle together.
I could be wrong - and if I were then God would not be necessary at all.
It certainly makes you think.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Please read the blog post; it's fairly short (642 words). Then here are my questions: Is God's existence necessary? If not, can we "prove" it at all? If God is not "necessary" does that mean She is contingent? And if so, upon what?
Your last question is the important one, which proves the blogger wrong. If god is not necessary, then god is contingent on something. Whatever that is, it is (logically if not temporally) prior, hence makes god be, and thus has itself a greater claim to the label "God". The only possible stopping point of an inquiry into being is some Being, which is relying in its Being only on Itself, and not on anything else. Either there is One such Being, God, or being itself (rather than how beings interact) has no reasonable causal explanation ("brute fact" atheism).
The blogger says: "It is also correct to say that God does not need to exist – there is no necessity in God – His existence is pure freedom." That sounds great, but makes no particular sense. Clearly, if God does not exist yet, He cannot decide to exist. In order to decide, one must already exist. The only possible sense I can make of this is that God is free to commit suicide somehow, i.e., free to end His existence. Whether that is true or not, it does not change that God cannot possibly have any freedom concerning the beginning of His existence.
The one justification he provides from scripture for all this (2 Cor 3:17) is on one hand badly ripped out of context. Actually, St Paul is going on about how one has to be Christian in order to read the OT correctly, i.e., the Spirit of the Lord frees the mind to understand scripture. On the other hand, even ripped out of context and considered on its own, this just does not say that God's existence is pure freedom. It says that where God is there is freedom. The order of causation is the other way around. If at all, this can be a radical challenge to our usual concept of freedom today, which would rather say that where choice (not God) is there is freedom.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Is God's existence necessary?
It depends on what you mean by that. The question of whether God was necessary in order for the universe to come into being in the first place is one that can never really be answered - it's a matter for belief.
But the question of whether the universe needed a Creator aside, no I don't think god is necessary. Once everything has got going it's perfectly capable of sustaining itself. The laws of physics operate whether there's a God or not. And so do we.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
I think C.S.Lewis would argue that God is necessary in order for the Universe to have meaning.
That assumes that the universe having meaning is a necessary thing. It's not. And if meaning is not necessary, then it cannot be used as an argument for God being necessary.
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Is God's existence necessary?
Necessary in what sense? God is necessary for us to explain the universe, where existence means caused. God is the Uncaused Cause of existence.
God simply as God is not necessary; God just is. But there's no "being" involved in God. That would imply some existence or activity within "is", which would make "is" contingent.
[cross-posted]
[ 12. July 2011, 09:39: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
Necessity as used in the article is only in a logical sense of dependency. Necessity is set against God's will and pleasure. I guess if we connect the two then what ever is his will and pleasure is necessary. However, The writer seems to be really saying that any necessity exists only in God himself and, as IngoB has said, the endlessness of such logic is only arrived at when one posits such a being that has no first cause because it doesn't need one.
Are we not back at the ontological argument?
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But the question of whether the universe needed a Creator aside, no I don't think god is necessary. Once everything has got going it's perfectly capable of sustaining itself. The laws of physics operate whether there's a God or not. And so do we.
Being a non cartesianist, I don't see God separate from the world. It is God that animates. Does science give sufficient reason for animation? For life?
*shrug*. Doesn't really matter. Just a point on the science I've always been curious about.
Essentially, what animates? Can our science explain that yet? I don't think so.
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
I agree that the definition of "necessary" is important for the discussion. I don't think he was talking about how God holds the entire universe in it's course; but rather more inspecting our personal necessity of him in this life. Of course I could just be projecting...
I recall one time in college a friend trying to write a paper about why she believed that God existed, her answer came down to (essentially): God must exist because I need Him. The fault I find in this logic is that God existed before the creation of time and the universe, a long time before he was needed by anybody.
I may be wrong, but it seems to me that what Father Stephen was getting at was that God exists outside of the realm of our logic and our necessity. Many people have lived life without any connection to God, God did not cease to exist because they did not rely on Him. I also think that his post was meant to be instructive for those already in the faith... not his treatise for proving the existence of God. This really stuck me:
quote:
All of this sets us in a place that can feel very insecure. We frequently prefer necessity to freedom and compulsion to love.
I don't think God wants us to be devoted to Him because we "need" him (though we certainly do) but more because we love Him and desire His love in return.
Just my 2 cents...
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Essentially, what animates? Can our science explain that yet? I don't think so.
Put simply, it's a bunch of proteins, amino acids, nucleic acids and other organic molecules reacting with each other.
Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on
:
I didn't think much of the linked article, but I am in the "God is necessary" camp. There probably isn't as much logical consistency in this argument as I'd like to think, but for me it runs something like this:
God is Nature. Nature evidently exists. It is in the nature of Nature to exist, because without existence there could be no Nature. Therefore God/Nature exists - and must, by its very nature, exist.
Of course, that only accounts for the "God of Nature", an essentially pantheistic, or possibly deistic, concept of God. I don't see anything in Nature that makes the existence of a personal, trinitarian, book-dictating, wafer-appearing God necessary (or likely).
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Essentially, what animates? Can our science explain that yet? I don't think so.
Put simply, it's a bunch of proteins, amino acids, nucleic acids and other organic molecules reacting with each other.
Doesn't explain the animating force tho does it? It explains the mechanism in which the animating force resides.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Okay, here my limitations come out and I'm going to ask the naive questions. Necessity--that means something needs something else (to exist), right? So does it make any sense at all to say that something needs God to exist, if God is before all things and in fact the very cause of their existence? Seems like cart before horse time.
I mean, here I am. And yes, I need God. But I don't "need him to exist"--my personal needs don't come into the question, because I'm a contingent being. If God, then (maybe) me. But not the other way around. God's existence is logically prior to my existence and therefore also to my needing. And that would be true of any created-and-therefore-contingent being.
Which leaves us with only one person who could "need" God to exist, and that is God himself. As the only non-contingent and always-existant being, he is the only one who could be in an eternal state of "needing" something to exist, simply because there is no "before God" or "without God" time.
But then we hit another logic mess, because we have God's "need-for-God" causing Godself, which is like one of those Escher pictures. It just goes round and round in a circle of illogic.
I don't think we can say that ANYTHING, truly, exists by necessity. Not God, because there is no one else to cause his necessity, and having him "need" himself is just freaky. Not us, because God has no need of us, but made us because he loves us and chose to make us freely.
Okay, have fun poking holes in my tangled mess of thoughts. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Essentially, what animates? Can our science explain that yet? I don't think so.
Put simply, it's a bunch of proteins, amino acids, nucleic acids and other organic molecules reacting with each other.
Doesn't explain the animating force tho does it? It explains the mechanism in which the animating force resides.
Science has no business with your ‘animating force’ or faeries.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Essentially, what animates? Can our science explain that yet? I don't think so.
Put simply, it's a bunch of proteins, amino acids, nucleic acids and other organic molecules reacting with each other.
Doesn't explain the animating force tho does it? It explains the mechanism in which the animating force resides.
Science has no business with your ‘animating force’ or faeries.
Yes it does.
Last time I checked, it was about explaining the physical universe.
And as I believe God is in the physical universe, I was curious as to an explanation.
[ 12. July 2011, 12:03: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
If you believe that the universe is within God, then he is necessary in order for any of it to exist.
Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on
:
I believe that god began when sentient beings, interested in their survival as the primary (and only) motivation realized that some "vegetables" were out of their reach and must belong to someone else. Thus, worship began in order to manipulate those others who controlled the untouchable vegetables. Sacrifice, animal and human, followed along with all the canons. So, was a god necessary in this scenario?
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Yes it does.
Um, no, I think you’re mistaken (and I’d say your position on this seems a trifle arrogant, if you’ll forgive my bluntness). Science is under no obligation to explain anything just because you assert it should, because you happen to believe it’s real and are curious about it. Indeed, if you want science to explain faeries, the onus is squarely on you firstly to prove to science that they in fact exist. Similarly, your ‘animating force’.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Once everything has got going it's perfectly capable of sustaining itself. The laws of physics operate whether there's a God or not. And so do we.
Actually, no, this is not the case. Or at least, Christianity claims that this is not the case. In fact, declaring God to be the "First Cause" in a traditional Christian sense rejects exactly this claim - and is not at all concerned with the question whether God caused the Big Bang. If the universe was eternal, without beginning or end, then the Christian God would still be its "First Cause". Because the "First" there is not meant in a temporal sense. What it rather means is that nothing can sustain itself or operate without God. Not the laws of physics, not we, nothing. It is in this sense that we ask "Why is there anything rather than nothing?", not in the sense "How did you get nothingness to quantum fluctuate into an inflationary universe," or whatever is the latest hypothesis in cosmology.
To explain, consider the screen you sit in front of as we speak. What is causing the image to appear that you are looking at right now? Electric currents adjusting liquid crystals on one hand and powering a back light on the other hand (or some other screen tech). What is causing this electric current to flow into the screen? A complicated setup of transmission cables, transformers etc. But what is causing this electricity to flow into the cables? Some turbine turning in a power plant, presumably. Let's say we track causation back further to steam production and ultimately the burning of coal, and then we call it a day. Please note that all this happens concurrently. (*) That we say the burning of coal comes before the image on your screen is not meant as saying that you first burn the coal, and then some seconds later you get the image. It is meant as saying that without the burning of coal, no image, rather than without the image, no burning of coal. There is a logical order of causation we see in this, rather than a temporal one. Note however that we just decided arbitrarily to put a stop at the burning of coal. We could have gone further and further with this, e.g., down to the quantum level, but concurrently. The question is: must this stop eventually? The answer is: yes, it must stop. We can, perhaps, imagine an infinite chain of temporal causation extending into eternity. But we cannot do this here. At this very point in time there is only an image on your screen because there's electricity flowing into liquid crystals and the back light, which is only there because it is flowing through the transmission cables, etc. If we never end this chain of logical causation, then there is no ultimate reason for you seeing an image. But you do see an image. So there must be an ultimate reason why this entire logical causation chain is present in its entirety, here and now. And the only way that can work is if there is Something that does not need to be caused in order to cause. A stopping point, and uncaused cause, the First Cause. A beginning of the immense logical chain of causation that ends in an image on your screen, and indeed everything else. And that is God, the Ultimate Causer of all that is, seen or unseen.
Perhaps to put it differently: if we compare the universe plus God to a mechanical watch, then you are unduly impressed by the mechanism apparently ticking along happily all by itself. The real question behind all the whirring and clicking is however, what is happening with the Mainspring? And this question is particularly vexing, because there is no "outside" here, there is just the watch. The Mainspring somehow must wind itself up! That is God.
(*) Yes, I am aware that there are minute conduction delays between electricity being generated and delivered to the screen, etc. That's really not the point, it's just the price to be paid for rendering this argument into objects of everyday human technology. More abstract "physics based" chains of concurrent logical causation can be build up easily, where all this formally holds.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Doesn't explain the animating force tho does it?
What "animating force"?
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
That is God.
I sense your keenness to get your point over, but ISTM you’re saying nothing more exciting than this: that, although science requires no First Cause in its explanation of the origins of everything, you religiously believe there is one, and it’s your God.
Have I missed something?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
What it rather means is that nothing can sustain itself or operate without God.
I realise that this is your belief, and I'm not going to argue against it on that basis. All I'm going to do is question whether one can start from a belief and thereby assert that the object of said belief is somehow necessary to everything that ever was, is or will be.
Fine, you believe that without God everything would simply stop working. I'm not so sure. I think we'd do just fine without God.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
...although science requires no First Cause in its explanation of the origins of everything...
Ah, but is such an explanation of the origins of everything even needed? It might be nice, or even desirable, but if the world would keep running without it then it's quite simply not necessary.
And, as the world would indeed keep working even without an explanation of its ultimate first cause, that explanation (and thus God) is not necessary.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And, as the world would indeed keep working even without an explanation of its ultimate first cause, that explanation (and thus God) is not necessary.
Quite.
The only thing I need to keep me working right now is a cup of coffee.
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I think we'd do just fine without God.
It depends what you mean by God. The Judeo-Christian tradition has always understood God as creator and sustainer, ie. the first cause. Those functions may have been relegated to the Father/Holy Spirit when the Trinity was formulated, but that means they are still an essential feature of God.
[cross-posted]
[ 12. July 2011, 14:26: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
Interesting questions.
A related issue is what we call an "existential crisis".
I think I need to believe that I am necessary - to someone or something, or for some purpose. Okay, you could argue with me on that, in that I don't need to believe that I am necessary in the sense that I need to eat my next meal. But when I don't think that I am necessary for something or other - I'd call that an "existential crisis".
So I guess that when people talk about other people or organisations having "existential crises", it means the same thing.
Sometimes, it's possible for me to conceive of a purpose for myself, without God existing. And when I can, the question of whether God exists or not doesn't bother me.
However, if I can't conceive of a purpose for myself, then I may look to God to shore up belief in my own purpose. But God is only able to shore up my belief in my own purpose, when I think that God him or herself also has a purpose.
To put it another way, if God does not have a purpose, and if I need God to exist in order to have a purpose myself, then I do not have a purpose either. But if I don't need God to exist in order to have a purpose, then the question of whether God has a purpose or not, or whether God exists or not, becomes irrelevant.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Necessary in what sense? God is necessary for us to explain the universe, where existence means caused. God is the Uncaused Cause of existence.
Indeed.
But the next question is - is it necessary to explain the universe?
If it is not necessary to explain the universe - then God becomes unnecessary again.
I don't know about others - but I for one generally don't lie awake at night that often, wondering whether the universe can be explained or not. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Essentially, what animates? Can our science explain that yet? I don't think so.
Indeed. But does science need to explain it? Is it necessary for science to explain what animates?
Again - no.
Come to think of it - is it necessary for science to do anything at all? Is it necessary for science to exist? And if it was not necessary for science to exist - would that mean that science would cease to exist?
Personally, I think there are reasons why it is necessary for science to exist - however, science itself is not able to explain those reasons. Science is necessary for the purposes of improving our knowledge about how to ensure security of food supply, and improving our knowledge about how to defend ourselves against predators and natural threats. These two purposes in turn are necessary for the purpose of maintaining and developing civilisation, which itself is necessary for the purpose of ....
... ah, you could easily go round in circles on this one. But in practice, I think most of these things are argued back from some kind of idealism or utopianism or other.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I sense your keenness to get your point over, but ISTM you’re saying nothing more exciting than this: that, although science requires no First Cause in its explanation of the origins of everything, you religiously believe there is one, and it’s your God. Have I missed something?
Yes, indeed. The entire argument. The explanations of science are largely irrelevant here. To what extent they may explain the origins of everything is besides the point (though I'm quietly confident that you vastly overrate science's current and future scope in this regard). In the watch analogy, science is about how the cog wheels fit together, what the escape mechanism is doing, etc. Those are relevant and interesting questions of course. I do this sort of questioning for a living. But they are not the sort of question we are asking here. This is not physics, this is metaphysics. We are not asking how this cogwheel acts on that one, we are asking how come that there can be cogwheels acting on each other? We stop bending over the watch with a monocular in our eye, poking at this or that with a tiny screw driver, sit back and look at the whole thing and ask "Why is this ticking in the first place?"
Or consider the burning coal to image on screen narrative. The point of the narrative was neither the burning coal, nor the image on the screen, not anything in between. All that is basically arbitrary illustration. We care not about what does what there, as science does. We care not how for example electric currents change liquid crystals. We care that something does something. In a completely alien universe, maybe oeigh cause sddgh, which causes aagoh, and then follows alpoitu, upon which we see sdaklryg happening. That's all very interesting to the gagkhj, who need lots of sdaklryg, and anyway are curious about even the tiniest sddgh. But for us that's all what the fuck ever, it's their physics not ours. But we may still wonder about this: Does the alien universe buck stop at oeigh? Metaphysics is never alien, because it is about understanding the world abstracted from its concrete manifestation at a level of principle.
Let me boil down a bit more for you. Physics asks: Why "A->B"? Metaphysics asks: Why "A" perhaps, why "B" maybe - but in particular, why "->"? Theism is not about claiming "A=God: God->B". Theism is about claiming "God: A" perhaps, "God: B" maybe - but in particular, "God: ->".
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Fine, you believe that without God everything would simply stop working. I'm not so sure. I think we'd do just fine without God.
Where did anything in my argument require belief? I did not exactly quote a creed at you, did I now? The argument I've given can be attacked, but frankly that requires some subtlety. To the claim "it is just belief" it is completely impervious. No, it is not just belief. Actually, it is about as little belief as humanly possible.
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Let me boil down a bit more for you. Physics asks: Why "A->B"? Metaphysics asks: Why "A" perhaps, why "B" maybe - but in particular, why "->"? Theism is not about claiming "A=God: God->B". Theism is about claiming "God: A" perhaps, "God: B" maybe - but in particular, "God: ->".
I think you've explained that very well.
Doesn't answer the question of "why God?", though. But you could just as easily ask, "why why?"
Why do things need to have reasons? Do things need to have reasons? If not, then why do people think things need to have reasons? Do people think things need to have reasons? If not, then why do we think that people think that things need to have reasons? Do we think that people think that things need to have reasons? If not ... and so on ad infinitum.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
I think you've explained that very well.
Thank you.
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
Doesn't answer the question of "why God?", though. But you could just as easily ask, "why why?" Why do things need to have reasons? Do things need to have reasons? If not, then why do people think things need to have reasons? Do people think things need to have reasons? If not, then why do we think that people think that things need to have reasons? Do we think that people think that things need to have reasons? If not ... and so on ad infinitum.
Ah, bravo! ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
To quote myself "The argument I've given can be attacked, but frankly that requires some subtlety." Got it in one, you did.
This is exactly the reason why I say that "brute fact atheism" can be a viable alternative, but only as a non-rational one. It requires denying the human "rational instinct" of seeking reasons one single, but crucial, step earlier than theism. One must say "this is not a proper question" to what very much looks like a proper question to the human intellect: What is the ultimate cause? One must cut the intellect's search short before it finds a reason-able resting point. Then, and only then, can one have no God.
That's why I find it so ironic that New Atheists bang on about the irrationality of religion. Whether miracles and angles and whatever else really are irrational can be debated. However, even if they were, this would merely amount to some kind of failure in getting one's fact straight. We make those errors all the time, no big deal really. However, the big question is what smart atheists like Russel were concerned with, namely the limits of reason. And there it is atheism, not theism, which must be pessimistic about reason and must limit its scope.
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
Is oxygen necessary for life?
And is not God the oxygen of all life?
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
I would believe in God, even if He did not exist.
All the best, Pyx_e
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'm not so sure. I think we'd do just fine without God.
That's what 'Adam' and 'Eve' thought too....
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
In the watch analogy, science is about how the cog wheels fit together, what the escape mechanism is doing, etc. Those are relevant and interesting questions of course. I do this sort of questioning for a living. But they are not the sort of question we are asking here. This is not physics, this is metaphysics. We are not asking how this cogwheel acts on that one, we are asking how come that there can be cogwheels acting on each other? We stop bending over the watch with a monocular in our eye, poking at this or that with a tiny screw driver, sit back and look at the whole thing and ask "Why is this ticking in the first place?"
{SNIP}
Let me boil down a bit more for you. Physics asks: Why "A->B"? Metaphysics asks: Why "A" perhaps, why "B" maybe - but in particular, why "->"? Theism is not about claiming "A=God: God->B". Theism is about claiming "God: A" perhaps, "God: B" maybe - but in particular, "God: ->".
You're a bloody legend when you're not an arrogant asshole IngoB.
I think that's what I meant by "animating force". But perhaps the term was too poncy.
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Yes it does.
Um, no, I think you’re mistaken (and I’d say your position on this seems a trifle arrogant, if you’ll forgive my bluntness). Science is under no obligation to explain anything just because you assert it should, because you happen to believe it’s real and are curious about it. Indeed, if you want science to explain faeries, the onus is squarely on you firstly to prove to science that they in fact exist. Similarly, your ‘animating force’.
Life exists Yorick.
I'm just asking a different scientific question to you.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'm not so sure. I think we'd do just fine without God.
That's what 'Adam' and 'Eve' thought too....
No they didn't!!!...
(please lord, don't let me get started on this again)
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
That is God.
I sense your keenness to get your point over, but ISTM you’re saying nothing more exciting than this: that, although science requires no First Cause in its explanation of the origins of everything,
Science requires no first cause in it's explanation of the origins of everything?
I wasn't aware science had an explanation for the origins of everything.
Care to share this bombshell? What explanation is that?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Fine, you believe that without God everything would simply stop working. I'm not so sure. I think we'd do just fine without God.
Where did anything in my argument require belief? I did not exactly quote a creed at you, did I now? The argument I've given can be attacked, but frankly that requires some subtlety. To the claim "it is just belief" it is completely impervious. No, it is not just belief. Actually, it is about as little belief as humanly possible.
OK then, if you don't like the word "belief" I'll call it your unproven hypothesis. You cannot demonstrate the need for there to be a reason why everything does what it does, nor can you offer any evidence that without any such reason nothing would work, so that's all it is.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And there it is atheism, not theism, which must be pessimistic about reason and must limit its scope.
Only to the extent that saying "we'll never know the answer to that question" is limiting the scope of reason.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Is oxygen necessary for life?
No, actually.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And there it is atheism, not theism, which must be pessimistic about reason and must limit its scope.
Only to the extent that saying "we'll never know the answer to that question" is limiting the scope of reason.
Christians do that.
But apparently Dawkins and Hawkins think the Universe can be explained by reason alone.
Didn't pay much attention to the Enlightenment.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
There are indeed people who feel that it is unnecessary for them to believe in what I suspect is an intellectual construct of 'God' to make sense of the universe and everything in it.
'God' to me is not primarily an intellectual concept which you can argue either for or against.
The late Archbishop Anthony Bloom was an atheist, growing up as a refugee in a poor and rough suburb of Paris, who felt that life was a bitter struggle to survive, until he had an experience that there was something more to life, that love and compassion mattered. That, to him, was the beginning of faith.
I do not have a problem with people not believing in 'God' because I think they are often responding to a false version of 'God' presented to them in their youth.
Sometimes I think atheists and agnostics show supposedly 'Christian' people up for their lack of real faith and practice.
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
I would believe in God, even if He did not exist.
All the best, Pyx_e
I think that is what atheists say about all Christians Pyx_e.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
I would believe in God, even if He did not exist.
OK, I have to ask.
Why?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
But apparently Dawkins and Hawkins think the Universe can be explained by reason alone.
I'd say the necessary stuff - the stuff that actually affects our lives, right here, right now - can be. It's only when you get to the silly questions like "why is there something instead of nothing" that there aren't any answers, and in terms of what's necessary the answer "there just is" suffices as well as any other.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
But apparently Dawkins and Hawkins think the Universe can be explained by reason alone.
I'd say the necessary stuff - the stuff that actually affects our lives, right here, right now - can be.
Well, yes. And more I think. In whatever sense it it possible to explain the universe it has to be possible to do it by reason because an account of the universe, or anything else, that is not reasonable is not in fact an explanation.
The opposite of logical thought is not a different way of thingking. It is the absence of thought, it is broken thought. "Reasonable" and "rational" and "logical" are words we use to describe thoughts and arguments that are working properly. We can't know everything. Maybe we can hardly know anything at all. But whatever we do know we have to know rationally because that's what we mean by "know". We can be mistaken of course, but it is possible to be rationally mistaken - you can be deluded or ignorant or unaware or kept in the dark about something without being irrational.
If God exists as described in traditional Jewish/Christian/Muslim teachings, i.e the eternal creator of the universe but not part of the universe, then it isn't possible to find evidence of God within the universe unless God has put it there, we can't experiment on God or observe God,so we must depend on revelation for knowledge of God. but that's not the opposite of reason, that's using reason. If there is a God to know and if it is possible to know God then our knowledge of God must be by means of reason, that's what knowledge is.
As for the OP, I think I agree that if God exists (as described etc. etc) then it must be neccessary that God exists. And obviously if there is no God it can't be neccessary that God exists. So if the question means anything at all (maybe it doesn't...) it has to mean "do you believe in God?"
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
But apparently Dawkins and Hawkins think the Universe can be explained by reason alone.
Do Dawkins and Hawkins really think that? Hmm. Why do we think that that's what they think?
I'd suspect that Hawkins is more likely to think that than Dawkins.
I think part of the problem is that there's not quite as strong a consensus on the meaning of "God" as there is on the meaning of "Teapot". For that reason, the Russell's Teapot analogy of the non-existence of God doesn't really apply. Some of the things that atheists describe as their own view of the origin of life and the universe, are in fact not that far away from what some people think is the definition of the word "God".
We're also similarly stuck in discussion of the necessity of God.
It seems to me that the more narrowly you define something, the less necessary that thing will appear to be. And I don't think that God is any exception to that.
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
The late Archbishop Anthony Bloom was an atheist, growing up as a refugee in a poor and rough suburb of Paris, who felt that life was a bitter struggle to survive, until he had an experience that there was something more to life, that love and compassion mattered. That, to him, was the beginning of faith.
I think there's something more to life as well. However, I find that a narrowly dogmatic view of God doesn't help to explain and articulate that "something". Indeed, I think it's easier to explain the "something more to life" without any reference to God at all, than by being dogmatic about who or what God is.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
I would believe in God, even if He did not exist.
OK, I have to ask.
Why?
Because even if it is all made up nonsense I am nothing without the hope of Him.
All the best, Pyx_e.
Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Because even if it is all made up nonsense I am nothing without the hope of Him.
That probably sounds odd to most, but makes perfect sense to me.
My own position is somewhat similar. If you are looking for an explanation of reality, Christianity fails. If you are looking for a vision of how to live well, it is excellent. The decision to be a Christian, in terms of a way of living, is therefore potentially independent of accepting or rejecting the literal truth-claims of the Christian religion.
It is perfectly possible, on this basis, to be a serious and committed Christian who doesn't believe in the real existence of the God of the Bible, but who choses to act almost as if they did so believe, as the excellence of it is separated from the truth of it.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Because even if it is all made up nonsense I am nothing without the hope of Him.
That probably sounds odd to most, but makes perfect sense to me.
My own position is somewhat similar. If you are looking for an explanation of reality, Christianity fails. If you are looking for a vision of how to live well, it is excellent. The decision to be a Christian, in terms of a way of living, is therefore potentially independent of accepting or rejecting the literal truth-claims of the Christian religion.
It is perfectly possible, on this basis, to be a serious and committed Christian who doesn't believe in the real existence of the God of the Bible, but who choses to act almost as if they did so believe, as the excellence of it is separated from the truth of it.
And in so doing find what you had never lost.
All the best, Pyx_e.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
And thus ends the Parable of the Pearl of Great Price.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
But apparently Dawkins and Hawkins think the Universe can be explained by reason alone.
Do Dawkins and Hawkins really think that? Hmm. Why do we think that that's what they think?
I admit I have only read secondary sources on the topic (via BBC and quality books).
But materialism does seem to be a big part of the program.
According to Hawkins, God is unnecesary.
Faulty logic IMO.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
If there is a God to know and if it is possible to know God then our knowledge of God must be by means of reason, that's what knowledge is.
Does experience count as reason in your paradigm?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
If there is a God to know and if it is possible to know God then our knowledge of God must be by means of reason, that's what knowledge is.
Does experience count as reason in your paradigm?
Reason is a property of thought.
Experience is what happens.
Everybody has experiences. Turning them into knowledge or understanding needs reason. Unreasonable, illogical, thought can make false knowledge out of genuine experiences. And reason can make false knowledge out of false experiences.
Insects have experience, but they don't have reason, so they can have no understanding. People do have reason, so we can understand. I make no comment about cats.
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on
:
I see on the screen in front of me that millions of people are facing starvation in the Horn of Africa. Is the existence of drought, strictly speaking, necessary?
This is not to belittle the OP. Perhaps both the necessity of God and the necessity of drought are linked in some way? Perhaps one needs the other.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
I see on the screen in front of me that millions of people are facing starvation in the Horn of Africa. Is the existence of drought, strictly speaking, necessary?
This is not to belittle the OP. Perhaps both the necessity of God and the necessity of drought are linked in some way? Perhaps one needs the other.
In the context of this thread drought is necessary as it's the name given to there not being enough water. We can see it's effects. In the wider context as you know asking if drought is necessary doesn't make sense. Asking if God is necessary is very important as so many people in power make or claim to make decisions based on god belief.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
I see on the screen in front of me that millions of people are facing starvation in the Horn of Africa. Is the existence of drought, strictly speaking, necessary?
This is not to belittle the OP. Perhaps both the necessity of God and the necessity of drought are linked in some way? Perhaps one needs the other.
I see on the sceen in front of me young women buying Botox injections at Ł120 a syringe. Necessity?
As the prophet says "You got to serve somebody."
All the best, Pyx_e
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
I see on the screen in front of me that millions of people are facing starvation in the Horn of Africa. Is the existence of drought, strictly speaking, necessary?
Of course drought isn't necessary. It's something that happens when there isn't enough water, which might make it pretty inevitable in some places, but it's not necessary. Existence as we know it wouldn't cease if there was no drought.
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
I see on the screen in front of me that millions of people are facing starvation in the Horn of Africa. Is the existence of drought, strictly speaking, necessary?
This is not to belittle the OP. Perhaps both the necessity of God and the necessity of drought are linked in some way? Perhaps one needs the other.
In the context of this thread drought is necessary as it's the name given to there not being enough water. We can see it's effects. In the wider context as you know asking if drought is necessary doesn't make sense. Asking if God is necessary is very important as so many people in power make or claim to make decisions based on god belief.
My poorly worded post meant that perhaps the God, whom suffering humanity needs so much, needs suffering humanity even more. This was partly p[rompted by Jung's assertion the Clement of Rome taught that God rules with a left and a right hand - the right being Christ, the left Satan (See Job, f'rinstance).
But perhaps I should have checked my sources more careful;ly. I have just skimmed all 56 chapters of Clement's letter to the Corinthians, and cannot find the teaching referred to.
Best just ignore me, and I'll go away ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
...
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
The late Archbishop Anthony Bloom was an atheist, growing up as a refugee in a poor and rough suburb of Paris, who felt that life was a bitter struggle to survive, until he had an experience that there was something more to life, that love and compassion mattered. That, to him, was the beginning of faith.
I think there's something more to life as well. However, I find that a narrowly dogmatic view of God doesn't help to explain and articulate that "something". Indeed, I think it's easier to explain the "something more to life" without any reference to God at all, than by being dogmatic about who or what God is.
People do make their own decisions depending on many things: intelligence, life experience, example etc.
As I said, I think the 'God' many people so passionately argue about is often just an intellectual construct to both sides.
That is why, when someone earnestly asks me 'Do you believe in God?' I'm often tempted to reply 'What sort of "God" would you mean?'
I find this 'The Never Ending Discussion'. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by 2ndRateMind (# 12231) on
:
As a neophyte, it seems to me that God is necessary if the universe is contingent; if the universe is necessary, then God is not.
To unpack, a little. If the universe could be, or could be not, and the principle of simplicity applies, we have to assume it would not be. Unless something made it be. Hence the necessity of God.
But if the universe must be, then there is no need for that something to make it so. In this view, God would be entirely unnecessary.
All the things and events we observe are contingent; but this does not necessarily mean that the whole is contingent. The combination of things in the universe may exhibit an emergent property of necessity - the science is still out on that one.
So, your conclusion will depend on your cosmology. If you think the universe needed a decision to bring it about, unsurprisingly you will think God to be necessary. If you don't, equally unsurprisingly, you won't.
My own feeling is that God is either unnecessary, or that His necessity is beyond our capacity to prove. A proven God would, however benevolent, impact on our freedom of will so drastically that it would be hard to describe Him as 'good'.
2RM.
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by 2ndRateMind:
A proven God would, however benevolent, impact on our freedom of will so drastically that it would be hard to describe Him as 'good'.
Nope, don't get this.
Posted by 2ndRateMind (# 12231) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
quote:
Originally posted by 2ndRateMind:
A proven God would, however benevolent, impact on our freedom of will so drastically that it would be hard to describe Him as 'good'.
Nope, don't get this.
That's OK. What I mean is that even a benevolent God, who we knew without shadow of doubt to exist, would be the most ghastly of dictators. He would know our every thought, word and deed, and retain the capacity to reward or punish them. There would be no escape into doubt or disbelief, just the unavoidably horrible knowledge that we could not escape Him, even if we chose to. And that would inevitably limit our choices, severely. Not because we limited them, freely, but because of the possible sanctions awaiting us.
2RM.
[ 16. July 2011, 22:24: Message edited by: 2ndRateMind ]
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
No supersize psychic policeman of the sort you describe is, or could be, God, in my view.
That aside. Surely it is one thing to know that God exists, and another thing entirely to know what God is like. I'm unfashionable enough to think that the former type of knowledge is not only possible, but possessed by millions of human beings. I think that the second type of knowledge is not possible in this life.
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
My poorly worded post meant that perhaps the God, whom suffering humanity needs so much, needs suffering humanity even more. This was partly p[rompted by Jung's assertion the Clement of Rome taught that God rules with a left and a right hand - the right being Christ, the left Satan (See Job, f'rinstance).
But perhaps I should have checked my sources more careful;ly. I have just skimmed all 56 chapters of Clement's letter to the Corinthians, and cannot find the teaching referred to.
Best just ignore me, and I'll go away
Don't go away. 1 Clement isn't very long - despite being 56 chapters (are you sure it's not 65?) - since none of the chapters seem to have more than 20 verses, and many chapters have only three verses or less.
What I'm more curious about is Jung's analysis. It sounds like more of a Manichaean view to me, than something that can be pinned on 1 Clement - although, on the other hand, I think that the idea that "good versus evil" dualism can be entirely pinned on Manichaeism has been overstated.
But yeah - it would be helpful if you could say where Jung said what he said, if you can, thanks.
quote:
Originally posted by 2ndRateMind:
My own feeling is that God is either unnecessary, or that His necessity is beyond our capacity to prove. A proven God would, however benevolent, impact on our freedom of will so drastically that it would be hard to describe Him as 'good'.
That sounds a bit like the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy to me; God says "I refuse to prove that I exist - for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing."
Can anyone prove that free will exists? Looks to me as though Calvin might have had his doubts about that one from time to time, what with the doctrine of predestination and everything.
Trouble is, it seems to me that if you don't believe that free will exists, then any kind of moral teaching becomes rather pointless. Including the idea that you can influence your afterlife through whether you "choose" to believe or not.
And it seems to me that one of the ironies of believing in God, is that to overstate God's sovereignty, implicitly denies the existence of free will.
Craziest of all is the idea that even God does not have free will - but that God has given up his authority by passing laws and making promises that he can't break. This idea is spoofed in the Bible, in the context of Persian royal decrees, Esther 8 and Daniel 6; the reason it holds comedy value is because a king is supposed to be able to do what he wants. And yet, in spite of the fact that the Bible itself seems to argue against the idea, there are still people who think that the Bible - or, rather, their own interpretation of the Bible - is somehow binding upon God.
If God is sovereign over us - but even God himself does not have free will - then what does that say about our free will, and our capacity to make moral choices? If we have free will but God does not, then the idea that God is sovereign over us becomes absurd.
If it's possible to prove the existence of a king or emperor without it negating the existence of our freedom, then why should proving the existence of God be any different?
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Surely it is one thing to know that God exists, and another thing entirely to know what God is like. I'm unfashionable enough to think that the former type of knowledge is not only possible, but possessed by millions of human beings. I think that the second type of knowledge is not possible in this life.
Really? What do you make of the claim that thriblinettes exist?
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Surely it is one thing to know that God exists, and another thing entirely to know what God is like. I'm unfashionable enough to think that the former type of knowledge is not only possible, but possessed by millions of human beings. I think that the second type of knowledge is not possible in this life.
Really? What do you make of the claim that thriblinettes exist?
I don't know what the word "thriblinettes" means, so I can't really say.
Aha, I anticipate you saying, by my own admission I don't know what the word "God" means, so I'm in know better position with the claim that God exists. Well, I think the word "God" means something along the lines of "whatever is the reason there is something rather than nothing", so to say that God exists just is to say that there is a reason for it all. Furthermore, because of God's effects in the world, I think I can say things like "God is good", "God loves creatures" and so on, just so long as I remember that the words "good" and "love" are being ripped out of their normal context of use. But the nature of God, what God is, that I claim is hidden from me.
The odd claim made by Christianity is that this hidden, absolute mystery is something we can participate in by grace.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
I'm cool with all that (and nice to see you posting again, by the way), though I do wonder if it isn't misleading.
The language we use when we say that God exists, sounds like a claim about what is or isn't to be found in the world. Which is the sort of thing the Dawkinsites latch onto and compare with flying spaghetti monsters. It doesn't sound like a claim that the world is intelligible, that there is reason for existence, that human life can make sense and that we can participate in the mystery - which a lot of people who baulk at the existence of a supreme being might find much more attractive.
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
I agree there's issues here - that is why we always need to stress that, as the Second Lateran Council put it, "between the Creator and the creature there cannot be a likeness so great that the unlikeness is not greater" - to meet every affirmation with a negation. How to go about this in practice? Well, other than just being explicit about the theology (as Lateran IV was), we signal our unknowing by using symbolic language: analogy and metaphor.
And here, I think, is where there's a communication breakdown in the present God debate. There are plenty of our contemporaries, Dawkins amongst them, who just cannot understand the suggestion that truth can be communicated by forms of discourse that are not literal and univocal. Quite what these people make of poetry, or of the experience of learning from ficiton, I don't know. But theology has a communication problem that is not theological in origin: it is the product of a philistine culture whose highest values are utility and profit.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by 2ndRateMind:
What I mean is that even a benevolent God, who we knew without shadow of doubt to exist, would be the most ghastly of dictators. He would know our every thought, word and deed, and retain the capacity to reward or punish them. There would be no escape into doubt or disbelief, just the unavoidably horrible knowledge that we could not escape Him, even if we chose to. And that would inevitably limit our choices, severely. Not because we limited them, freely, but because of the possible sanctions awaiting us.
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
No supersize psychic policeman of the sort you describe is, or could be, God, in my view.
Sorry, don't understand. Surely that's exactly what God has to be? Or are you saying one or both of the following?
- God cannot know our every thought, word and deed.
- God cannot retain the capacity to reward or punish.
Posted by 2ndRateMind (# 12231) on
:
Hey Marvin.,
No I don't mean either of those two things you suggest.
What I am getting at is that believers, generally, have chosen God, rather than had Him imposed on them. They serve Him because they love Him, and it's their own free choice as to how much and how far they do so.
Unbelievers need not get involved, and are free to serve themselves, or others, as the fit takes them.
Contrast this liberal state of affairs with one that would arise if God were to be proven, beyond all possible doubt. There would be no choice involved at all. One would simply know that the great autocrat in the sky demanded certain things of one, and that all that remained for us to do would be to comply or face the consequences. There would be no space for love, only fear.
2RM
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by 2ndRateMind:
What I am getting at is that believers, generally, have chosen God, rather than had Him imposed on them. They serve Him because they love Him, and it's their own free choice as to how much and how far they do so.
...
Contrast this liberal state of affairs with one that would arise if God were to be proven, beyond all possible doubt. There would be no choice involved at all. One would simply know that the great autocrat in the sky demanded certain things of one, and that all that remained for us to do would be to comply or face the consequences. There would be no space for love, only fear.
The very nature of belief - for me at least - shifts the state of affairs from the former to the latter. I really wish I could choose not to believe, and genuinely do it. But I can't. However hard I try I always know He's there, watching. Demanding. Judging.
Posted by 2ndRateMind (# 12231) on
:
quote:
I really wish I could choose not to believe, and genuinely do it. But I can't. However hard I try I always know He's there, watching. Demanding. Judging.
But not also loving, understanding, excusing, forgiving?
CS Lewis thought that people get God in their own image. If so, the harder we are on ourselves and others, the harder He is concieved to be on us. I do hope your relationship with God becomes less a matter of accused and judge, and more a matter of the love of friends. For God, too, has much to answer for.
2RM
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The very nature of belief - for me at least - shifts the state of affairs from the former to the latter. I really wish I could choose not to believe, and genuinely do it. But I can't. However hard I try I always know He's there, watching. Demanding. Judging.
That's not belief. That's paranoia.
Seems to me that in ancient Egypt, peasant farmers working on the banks of the Nile might have occasionally doubted the existence of the Pharaoh. After all, hardly any of them ever saw him.
However, those who did believe that he existed, knew that he was very powerful. He had the power of life and death over you. He could raise you up the social ranks, and he could bring you back down again. When the harvest was good, it was because of the way that the Pharaoh had sensibly managed the economy.
On the other hand, those who doubted the existence of the Pharaoh, probably just thought the Nile does what it does anyway. Sometimes, harvests are good, and sometimes they're not so good.
Perhaps that's where the idea of God came from in the first place. I don't know.
I'd agree that having the existence of the Pharaoh proved to you might be a fearful occasion. However, it doesn't necessarily mean that you lose your freedom. So I don't see how God is any different.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
But theology has a communication problem that is not theological in origin: it is the product of a philistine culture whose highest values are utility and profit.
Theology is a product of a philistine culture, or its communication problem is a product of a philistine culture?
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
There are plenty of our contemporaries, Dawkins amongst them, who just cannot understand the suggestion that truth can be communicated by forms of discourse that are not literal and univocal. Quite what these people make of poetry, or of the experience of learning from ficiton, I don't know.
Neither do I. But as a result of you saying that, I thought I'd Google it - and have thus discovered that Richard Dawkins is a Fellow grade member of the Royal Society of Literature. And he shared his thoughts on the subject of poetry in his 1998 book Unweaving the Rainbow.
Posted by 2ndRateMind (# 12231) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
If it's possible to prove the existence of a king or emperor without it negating the existence of our freedom, then why should proving the existence of God be any different?
Hello Jessie. I think I understand your point, but 1) I would suggest that kings and emperors do limit our freedoms (ask any protestor in the Arab spring) and 2) there is an ontological gap between human kings and emperors and God. No human knows our very thoughts and motivations, and so no human could impact and invade our freedoms so completely. But you are welcome to develop your argument further, and I will try to respond as best I may.
2RM.
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by 2ndRateMind:
I would suggest that kings and emperors do limit our freedoms (ask any protestor in the Arab spring)
Thanks. Kings and emperors do indeed limit our freedom. But then so too do prison walls. As, indeed, does mortality. These things limit freedom - but they don't remove freedom completely.
There's also a distinction to be made between two different kinds of limitation of freedom. One of those limitations is by prevention - and the other is by consequence.
Consequence is what happens as a result of doing something that you shouldn't do. For example, if you put your hand in the fire, it will get burned. But that doesn't stop you from putting your hand in the fire in the first place.
But prevention, by contrast, is something that you simply can't do to start off with. Like growing an extra pair of hands. Or morphing into a bird, or into a snake.
So, something that limits freedom by consequence, doesn't really limit your freedom at all. The only things that really limit your freedom, are prevention.
So, if your freedom is limited because there's a king - or an emperor - or a deity - that will pass judgement on you for doing that thing - then that's a consequence. It's not a prevention.
But what is it that stops us from morphing into birds? Is it that we would face the wrath of God if we did morph into birds? Or is there something or someone other than God that stops us morphing into birds?
Supposing that there is some being that prevents us morphing into birds - and, for the sake of argument, let's call that being "God".
Does God need to know your thoughts and motivations, in order to stop you from sprouting wings and morphing into a bird?
Maybe God does.
But then again - does a prison wall need to know your thoughts and motivations in order to prevent you escaping from the prison?
I grant that such information might be useful to the guards. But the walls still play a part in preventing your escape - and I don't honestly suppose the walls know very much about you at all.
So I think we've shown that an entity or phenomenon that limits your freedom by prevention, doesn't really need to have knowledge of your thoughts and motivations. But what about entities and phenomena that limit your freedom by consequence?
What about the fire? Does the fire need to know what you are thinking, in order to burn your hand? Does the fire need to understand your motives? It would seem not. It would seem that regardless of your thoughts and motives, if you put your hand in the fire, your hand will be burned.
However, that does not remove your freedom to choose whether or not to put your hand in the fire in the first place.
And I'm not really seeing how it's any different with God.
The fire might exist - but then again, it might not. God might exist - but then again, God might not. Our understanding of the consequences of our actions might be quite good - but then again, it might not be.
But to the extent that we can make models of causality, it doesn't seem to make much difference how well or how badly we understand those models. The fire will still burn your hand, even if you don't know that it will.
Now, you could argue that God will still judge you, even if you don't know that he will. But the snag is, it's difficult to follow a process of trial and error in order to figure out how God will and won't judge you for various different actions. That's what makes God different to a fire.
Personally, I believe that there is such a thing as "evidence based ethics". There are various different laws and morals that codify right and wrong, and it varies from culture to culture. But those codes have come about as a result of people observing the consequences of other people's actions.
So if killing people consistently seems to make other people want to take revenge on you, then, sooner or later, you'll figure out that it's probably not a good idea to kill people too often, if you can help it. Assuming that others don't kill you in revenge first, of course.
So, the way in which our freedom is "limited" by consequence, is something that we learn gradually, as time goes by. We don't start off our lives by knowing all the possible consequences of all the possible actions from the outset. We try to make use of other people's knowledge to the extent that we can - but there's some things that we have to learn for ourselves.
And it seems to me that God is only tangentially relevant to that process - if indeed God is relevant at all.
Posted by 2ndRateMind (# 12231) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
No supersize psychic policeman of the sort you describe is, or could be, God, in my view.
Exactly. That is what I am trying to get at. The supersize, supernatural, omnipsychic, uber-policeman escapes from total dictatorship by being unprovable.
2RM
Posted by 2ndRateMind (# 12231) on
:
Yes, Jessie, I think you make a useful distinction between limitation of freedom by prevention and limitation of freedom by consequence. In this world, at any rate.
However, we are not just talking trivia, here. We are talking eternity of damnation. In the certainty of a proven God, is the difference between prevention and consequence as stark as you suggest?
2RM
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by 2ndRateMind:
Yes, Jessie, I think you make a useful distinction between limitation of freedom by prevention and limitation of freedom by consequence. In this world, at any rate.
However, we are not just talking trivia, here. We are talking eternity of damnation. In the certainty of a proven God, is the difference between prevention and consequence as stark as you suggest?
Thanks for asking. I still think that it is.
It's occurred to me that whilst it's fairly standard theology to suppose that God limits our freedom by consequences, there are some significant problems with the idea that God limits our freedom by prevention.
So - it seems that we can't just will ourselves a set of wings, and morph into birds. If we suppose that it's God that stops us from doing that - then it's not unreasonable to suppose that maybe God stops us from doing other things too. Like coming back to life after we die, for example.
I'm sure you can see why that sort of idea would cause significant problems for Christian theology.
If we start from the naive assumption that God's existence is proved because no-one else can come up with a better explanation for the origin of the phenomena we see around us - then, sooner or later, someone's going to ask whether or not that includes the phenomenon of mortality.
If everything but death was caused by God - then why should death be an exception? Since we can't say who or what created death, must we therefore suppose that death doesn't exist at all?
Some might think that's an argument that God doesn't exist - or at least God as conceived of by Christianity does not exist. Others might disagree. But it seems to me that the underlying idea is one of battle of wills; if God is Sovereign, how can we have free will? If we have free will, then how can God be Sovereign? Then again, if we don't have free will - then what's the point in being concerned about what we do or don't believe or practice?
It's not just about God and us, though. It's also about each of us as individuals. How is it possible for more than one person to have free will at any one time? Surely the free will of one person negates the free will of another?
That's why it's important to recognise the limits of freedom - and to be able to distinguish between the things you would prefer not to do because you'd rather avoid adverse consequences, and the things you simply can't do because it's not physically possible.
Mind you, I concede that the line between the two can sometimes be a little bit blurry - especially in the context of sport and healthcare. Do a Google News search for "miracle", and you'll find that the vast majority of reported miracles occur in the context of either sport, or healthcare.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by 2ndRateMind:
quote:
I really wish I could choose not to believe, and genuinely do it. But I can't. However hard I try I always know He's there, watching. Demanding. Judging.
But not also loving, understanding, excusing, forgiving?
Well, one can always hope.
That God, being - well - God, would demand compliance with His wishes and judge humanity based on said compliance is obvious to me. That He would actually love humanity? Less so. I don't understand how anyone so amazingly great and perfect could ever love anyone so not-great and imperfect. It would be like me loving a bacterium.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
It seems a simple, or complex, definition of a 'God' entity will not satisfy you, Jessie P.
Given that all definitions are, by their nature, unsatisfactory, what, then, are you looking for?
Perhaps it's not 'God' but the philosophical discussion of what 'God' may, or may not be and how or how this is not important to the explanation of the universe that is.
The late Bertrand Russell and a former Abbot of Downside once discussed this very matter many moons ago.
It appears they did not reach agreement and the debate continues.
Posted by 2ndRateMind (# 12231) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
... That He would actually love humanity? Less so. I don't understand how anyone so amazingly great and perfect could ever love anyone so not-great and imperfect. It would be like me loving a bacterium.
Perhaps that is an ontological leap too far. After all, people love their pets, despite the mess they make. And we are supposedly made in God's image. I suspect that God has more in common with us, than we do with bacteria.
2RM.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by 2ndRateMind:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
No supersize psychic policeman of the sort you describe is, or could be, God, in my view.
Exactly. That is what I am trying to get at. The supersize, supernatural, omnipsychic, uber-policeman escapes from total dictatorship by being unprovable.
An unprovable dictator doesn't thereby cease to be a dictator. In fact, I'd say the unprovable dictator is a cause of extra anxiety, because you can't be quite sure that you can't get away with nothing.
Posted by 2ndRateMind (# 12231) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
An unprovable dictator doesn't thereby cease to be a dictator. In fact, I'd say the unprovable dictator is a cause of extra anxiety, because you can't be quite sure that you can't get away with nothing.
Hmmm. Fortunately this dictator is benign.
Consider the dictats:
'Love Me; Love each other.'
'But I don't think you exist!'
End of conversation.
2RM.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by 2ndRateMind:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
... That He would actually love humanity? Less so. I don't understand how anyone so amazingly great and perfect could ever love anyone so not-great and imperfect. It would be like me loving a bacterium.
Perhaps that is an ontological leap too far.
No it's not.
If you've ever had kids, you still love them however imperfect they are.
quote:
Originally posted by 2ndRateMind:
I suspect that God has more in common with us, than we do with bacteria.
But God made bacteria too; another child of creation. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by 2ndRateMind:
quote:
I really wish I could choose not to believe, and genuinely do it. But I can't. However hard I try I always know He's there, watching. Demanding. Judging.
But not also loving, understanding, excusing, forgiving?
Well, one can always hope.
That God, being - well - God, would demand compliance with His wishes and judge humanity based on said compliance is obvious to me. That He would actually love humanity? Less so. I don't understand how anyone so amazingly great and perfect could ever love anyone so not-great and imperfect. It would be like me loving a bacterium.
Well no it wouldn't because you, unlike a bacterium, are a personal being, capable of responding to love. But this is where the stress on the 'otherness' of God becomes vital. God is not at the big end of some scale of comparison, a hierarchy of being, with you at the other end. There is simply no basis for comparison between God and you.
I can say that you are better than, say, a cat (sorry cat-lovers) for a variety of reasons. You are more intelligent, more athletic perhaps, and so on. But these comparisons turn on you having properties in common with the cat, which can be compared qualitatively (implicitly they also turn on you both being material objects, rational agents etc). But you have no properties in common with God, so I, and a long tradition claim.
My major worry with alternative views is that they end up in the position which Feuerbach rightly laid into, where God can only be glorified at the expense of humanity. God being great somehow trades on me being less great by comparison. Sed contra to the extent that we are great, and we all are to some extent, that reflects the glory of God as creator.
Oh, and on the 'policeman' point from earlier. Yes, this is a problem for many theists, but so much the worse for them. Talk of God punishing sin, although scriptural and traditional, is metaphorical. God isn't some sort of psychologically volatile bloke who gets upset when people sin - as though sin could harm God - and feels the need to lash out. Again, God just isnt like us. Those who invoke justice to close the gap here seem to me to have a perverse understanding of this virtue, which has more in common with the governor of Texas than with any serious ethics.
[ 21. July 2011, 12:33: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0