Thread: Better to believe what's true than what's false? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026395
Posted by Calleva Atrebatum (# 14058) on
:
Hello Ship, I'm back after a rather long time away... with a question:
If a belief, about anything, religious or otherwise, does not harm (insofar as we can reasonably tell) but is false then is it legitimate to believe it? So, let us say, hypothetically, that I visit a psychic to get messages about my dead relative, and let us say that I'm not being especially ripped off, and that I draw comfort and happiness from these visits, and do not act on this information in any way and let us also say that there is no truth in the psychic's messages - there is no spirit world, there is no dead relative's soul, there is no actual mediumistic communication. Is my belief here acceptable, is it permissible? Is it perhaps even laudable?
Or, ought I cease this belief, and be, perhaps, less content as a result? Is it better to be sad but right, than happy but wrong? And do my friends/family-members/maybe even total strangers have a duty and/or right to tell me that my belief is bollocks, and to encourage me to enter into a preferable state of affairs, i.e. not believing in a falsehood?
Is it preferable to believe something true as opposed to something false, even if that belief has no effects beyond the believer? And, if it is, why?
Finally, I am assuming here that 'true' means 'corresponds to an objectively existing reality that exists independent of my thoughts and feelings about it.' And false means 'not in correspondence with that objectively existing reality.' I'm rejecting a relativist/subjectivist account of truth - but maybe I'm being naïve and narrow-minded in so doing...?
Many thanks Ship,
Calleva
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
The problem with false beliefs is that when you act upon them, you probably won't get the result you are looking for. Because you're acting on a false premise.
That's why I tend to be slightly sceptical of the idea that 'I can have a false belief and it won't do any harm'. It probably will, unless you leave that belief as some kind of really abstract idea that doesn't influence your life or your actions.
[ 13. October 2013, 07:34: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Calleva Atrebatum (# 14058) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The problem with false beliefs is that when you act upon them, you probably won't get the result you are looking for. Because you're acting on a false premise.
I can clearly see this, in cases where my belief might be along the lines of "Oh, I don't need medical care, just prayer is fine." Or, even worse, when I hold that belief about friends or dependents.
But many beliefs do seem very abstract... don't they? Like, let's say my above example about visits to a psychic: should my (entirely hypothetical) friend/family member try to dissuade me from visiting, even if the visits only provide emotional comfort and are never acted on?
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
Surely the 'emotional comfort' is not an inactive element in your psyche? What does your desire for it indicate? That you fear death? That you cannot accept loss? Is the one seance enough, or will you spend more and more time and money pursuing an elusive proof?
There are always motors for what we choose to believe. I don't say that they are necessarily negative - the can be what inspire us to do or be something worthwhile. But they can be a coping mechanism which will eventually fail, and then what happens?
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
There was a case in the NY Times today where a psychic was convicted of stealing many thousands of dollars from her clients. They were typically trying to cope with death or loss of a relationship. Many times you're putting yourself in a vulnerable position with someone who advocates false beliefs. It's your right to do so, just as it's your right to walk along cliff edges, but your friends have the right to tell you you're being stupid and also point out the false belief.
This does remind me of an Olympic drug doping problem that came up a few years ago, which the drug testers weren't able to cope with. Several coaches were suspected of giving their athletes placebos and telling them they were illegal performance enhancing drugs. So yes, there are false beliefs that may be helpful in some way. But you're chipping away a thread of reality each time you do it.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I'm curious about the independently existing reality - have you decided that this is true, or is it something that you wish is true, or is it an axiom which is important to the argument?
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The problem with false beliefs is that when you act upon them, you probably won't get the result you are looking for. Because you're acting on a false premise.
That's why I tend to be slightly sceptical of the idea that 'I can have a false belief and it won't do any harm'. It probably will, unless you leave that belief as some kind of really abstract idea that doesn't influence your life or your actions.
As they say, "garbage in, garbage out". A false premise will lead to false conclusions (unless it's a superfluous premise). So on the one hand I do agree that wrong thinking will tend to manifest itself in wrong action somewhere down the line.
On the other hand, life isn't a logical argument. Maybe I need an inflated idea of my own capabilities in order to attempt anything difficult; maybe comforting illusions can serve a good purpose (just as on occasion a lie can serve a good purpose).
Am I contradicting myself ?
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by Calleva Atrebatum (# 14058) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm curious about the independently existing reality - have you decided that this is true, or is it something that you wish is true, or is it an axiom which is important to the argument?
It's an axiom for the argument: let's say, for this argument, that the existence of the dead relatives that the psychic is 'talking' to is false.
But we could just as easily pick anything - religious or metaphysical beliefs, or political convictions... can truth/falsehood even apply to such beliefs at all, actually?! :/
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
Given the relatively common phenomenon of the placebo effect, I'm not sure the truth or falsity -- even where that can actually be determined -- matters.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Calleva Atrebatum:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm curious about the independently existing reality - have you decided that this is true, or is it something that you wish is true, or is it an axiom which is important to the argument?
It's an axiom for the argument: let's say, for this argument, that the existence of the dead relatives that the psychic is 'talking' to is false.
If the person accepts that the existence of the dead relatives the psychic is talking to is "false", how does it help them?
If they don't know its false, but everybody else thinks its false - that's different.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
That it's better to believe what's true than what's false is inherent in the concepts of truth and belief. That's one of the fundamental characteristics of beliefs and other belief-like attitudes: that they aim to be true. It's what makes them beliefs rather than fictional statements.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Calleva Atrebatum:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm curious about the independently existing reality - have you decided that this is true, or is it something that you wish is true, or is it an axiom which is important to the argument?
It's an axiom for the argument: let's say, for this argument, that the existence of the dead relatives that the psychic is 'talking' to is false.
But we could just as easily pick anything - religious or metaphysical beliefs, or political convictions... can truth/falsehood even apply to such beliefs at all, actually?! :/
Well, yes. You can assume whatever you like as an axiom, fair enough. But how do you establish that something is false?
I was thinking about Maoris, some of whom do practice forms of honour paid to ancestors, and so on, I would hesitate to call it 'ancestor worship'.
Anyway, my point is that such practices are often tightly integrated into the social structure of communities, and often express various important values. Thus, we find that agricultural practices are often woven into the religious beliefs of various tribes.
So do you go along and say to them, no, sorry, your beliefs are 'false'?
Well, that's what Christian missionaries did, isn't it, much to their shame. It's a kind of cognitive imperialism, isn't it?
Posted by Calleva Atrebatum (# 14058) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, that's what Christian missionaries did, isn't it, much to their shame. It's a kind of cognitive imperialism, isn't it?
But isn't it only to their shame (i.e. wrong of the missionaries) if their (the Christians') beliefs are wrong and/or the Maori beliefs true?
Isn't it in fact actually the right, proper and laudable thing to do for them to preach and convert the Maori if the Christian belief is true? Not so much cognitive imperialism as cognitive liberation.
And as to an earlier point... (that the notion that inherent in the concepts of 'true' and 'false' is, as a first principle that doesn't need establishing, that it is preferable to believe the true and not believe the false....) I do sort-of believe that, but I couldn't tell you why. Why, really, is belief in something false a problem, allowing that that belief does no harm to the individual and/or others.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Ignorance is bliss so give me ignorance?
Posted by Calleva Atrebatum (# 14058) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Ignorance is bliss so give me ignorance?
This, really, is one of the main issues of why I wrote the OP, which stemmed from a long conversation at a friend's house the other day: namely, that they believed it was better to believe a lie (or several lies) and to persist in this if it made them happier than believing the truth would. I just cannot imagine or even empathise with any state of affairs where I'd rather believe a lie - I would far rather be miserable as a result of truth, than content by a lie (and I'd be especially pissed off if I found out that my happiness about something was down to believing in a lie.) So no, ignorance isn't bliss - it's a hellish prison and one made worse by warrant of not knowing it's there.
Posted by Grokesx (# 17221) on
:
quote:
Isn't it in fact actually the right, proper and laudable thing to do for them to preach and convert the Maori if the Christian belief is true? Not so much cognitive imperialism as cognitive liberation.
In some other universe where the truth of Christianity has been established by God deciding that the Divine hiddenness thing was on balance not a smart move, then that would be the case. But in that universe, missionaries would be superfluous anyway. In this one it is still cognitive imperialism whichever way you cut it.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
I think that it stunts our spiritual growth to live a lie, and that the truth sets us free to continue the journey and grow closer to God.
Life means more than pursuit of a comfort blanket.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
If one takes any given religious/philosophical outlook, one will find many examples of lives lived more positively for each. Since all outlooks cannot be true, many have lived in untruth with no discernible harm.
Also, given there is no provable "truth", who is to say what is true with any real authority?
Posted by Calleva Atrebatum (# 14058) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
quote:
Isn't it in fact actually the right, proper and laudable thing to do for them to preach and convert the Maori if the Christian belief is true? Not so much cognitive imperialism as cognitive liberation.
In some other universe where the truth of Christianity has been established by God deciding that the Divine hiddenness thing was on balance not a smart move, then that would be the case. But in that universe, missionaries would be superfluous anyway. In this one it is still cognitive imperialism whichever way you cut it.
Ok, Grokesx, let me push this a little further: what criteria do we use to say of beliefs: "ok, these beliefs, Xs, are established certainly, so telling others of these is cognitive liberation, whereas these other beliefs, Ys, are not established certainly, so telling ("preaching") others they ought believe these ones is actually cognitive imperialism."
Take the beliefs of scientific empiricism: was I justified in telling the guy I worked with as a student that germs exist when he asked me, "Do you believe in germs?". Was I justified in telling the 9/11 conspiracy-ist that, in all reasonable probability, 9/11 was *not* an inside job.... or, in doing those two things, am I a Cognitive Imperialist? Am I guilty of Cognitive Imperialism if I tell Jacob Zuma that, "no Aids can't be cured by eating sweet potatoes...?" Or if I tell my grandma that, "no, grandma, when there's a thunder storm you don't need to cover up the mirrors because uncovered mirrors don't actually 'attract' lightning?"
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Calleva Atrebatum:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, that's what Christian missionaries did, isn't it, much to their shame. It's a kind of cognitive imperialism, isn't it?
But isn't it only to their shame (i.e. wrong of the missionaries) if their (the Christians') beliefs are wrong and/or the Maori beliefs true?
Isn't it in fact actually the right, proper and laudable thing to do for them to preach and convert the Maori if the Christian belief is true? Not so much cognitive imperialism as cognitive liberation.
And as to an earlier point... (that the notion that inherent in the concepts of 'true' and 'false' is, as a first principle that doesn't need establishing, that it is preferable to believe the true and not believe the false....) I do sort-of believe that, but I couldn't tell you why. Why, really, is belief in something false a problem, allowing that that belief does no harm to the individual and/or others.
I'm curious how you're going to demonstrate to Maoris that their beliefs are false, and yours (assuming here a Christian view), are true. Will it be a version of 'because I say so'? Or maybe something a bit more sophisticated, like 'it's true because the Bible says it is'?
Or maybe, 'your ancestors cannot possibly be alive and helping you right now, but if you become a Christian, you might be able to meet them in heaven'?
It just sounds like epistemic arrogance to me.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Calleva Atrebatum:
This, really, is one of the main issues of why I wrote the OP, which stemmed from a long conversation at a friend's house the other day: namely, that they believed it was better to believe a lie (or several lies) and to persist in this if it made them happier than believing the truth would. I just cannot imagine or even empathise with any state of affairs where I'd rather believe a lie - I would far rather be miserable as a result of truth, than content by a lie (and I'd be especially pissed off if I found out that my happiness about something was down to believing in a lie.) So no, ignorance isn't bliss - it's a hellish prison and one made worse by warrant of not knowing it's there.
I totally agree with you. Coincidentally I was considering this very question yesterday in connection with a poster on another forum. It could just possibly be true in a very small way that no apparent harm results to a particular individual, but any such incident does not justify falsehood. If a person knowingly makes a choice to believe the falsehood, then that is their freedom to do so, but from my atheist point of view, all statements which purport to tell truths about God/god/s especially when reported to children as truth, however well-intentioned the information-giver, are false. Understandable, because of history, culture, etc etc, but still false.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Heaven protect us from the zeal of the non-believer!
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It just sounds like epistemic arrogance to me.
Because it is.
To believe one has accepted the one, true system is acceptable; to fail to understand others legitimately feel the same regarding their faiths, not so much.
Posted by Calleva Atrebatum (# 14058) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It just sounds like epistemic arrogance to me.
In fact, quetzalcoatl, I do agree with you - in the case of the beliefs we're discussing right now, namely Maori 'ancestor veneration' vs. Christian 'sky-god-human-hybrid veneration.' In the cases of both, we cannot *know*, so any amount of preaching, by either side, is epistemic arrogance/cognitive imperialism.
But what I'm getting at is where the line is drawn in epistemology: see my above examples about Aids being cured by sweet potatoes or superstition like mirror-covering in a lightning storm. Can we *know* these are false and so legitimately know that it's cognitive liberation to tell the belief holder that they are - objectively - wrong?
And, second, what would you do, quetzalcoatl, if Maori 'ancestor veneration' or Christian 'sky-god-worship' also included, as a part of its 'unknowable' belief system, the practice of, say, child sacrifice?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
At this point you are going into demonstrable harm with no empirical benefit.
This is akin to the Christian Science anti-medicine issue.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Calleva
One problem here is that you are doing a massive mash-up of scientific stuff and religious stuff!
On AIDS, surely we would turn to scientific research, to find out what works and what doesn't?
However, with religious stuff, there is no empirical evidence either way.
Child-sacrifice? Do you know the old reply by the conscientious objectors, when asked what they would do if a German attempted to rape their wife? I would interpose my own body. Well, maybe.
But here again you are doing a bait and switch - from beliefs to actions.
Posted by Calleva Atrebatum (# 14058) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Calleva
One problem here is that you are doing a massive mash-up of scientific stuff and religious stuff!
However, with religious stuff, there is no empirical evidence either way.
But here again you are doing a bait and switch - from beliefs to actions.
I'm 'mashing up' religious stuff and 'scientific stuff' quite deliberately - they're often the same thing.
If I make the claim, for example, that Jesus rose from the dead, or that God made the universe 6,000 years ago in 6 days, I am making a scientific claim (I might also be making a religious one.) Now, I don't subscribe to the belief of scientism that *all* truth is scientific truth, but the two above claims are clearly claims to which empirical data can apply: so, again, is it cognitive imperialism if I tell the 6-day-creationist or literal-resurrection-believer that their beliefs are, on the empirical evidence, not true. If it is, why is it not a problem to tell someone that Aids doesn't get cured by sweet potatoes - the evidence there is just as empirical, isn't it?
Second criticism - that I'm moving from beliefs to actions. Yes, I am. But only because beliefs (usually) lead to or cause actions. If I believe that the Sun-God will only be happy and make the sun come back if it eats the heart of a child once a year, then I must sacrifice a child once a year.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Calleva
Jesus rose from the dead a scientific claim? Eh? It's certainly a religious claim, but how is it scientific? Surely it would be considered to be a miracle which is not captured by the laws of physics.
I think the problem with 6 day creationists is that they claim that it's scientifically founded.
Well, if you want to talk about actions, OK. It's a different argument, is all.
Posted by Grokesx (# 17221) on
:
quote:
Ok, Grokesx, let me push this a little further: what criteria do we use to say of beliefs: "ok, these beliefs, Xs, are established certainly, so telling others of these is cognitive liberation, whereas these other beliefs, Ys, are not established certainly, so telling ("preaching") others they ought believe these ones is actually cognitive imperialism."
This sort of covers ground already alluded to, but there's no cut off point. We're looking at a continuum where there are beliefs that rest on pretty solid foundations that are testable, repeatable etc - the boiling point of water at a given pressure, say - at one end and ones that rest on nothing at all like fairies at the bottom of the garden at the other. We all have our opinions where our particular beliefs lie on the continuum, but it seems pretty obvious to me that religious claims are at best somewhere in the middle and we are not justified in telling others what they should believe in those areas.
Of course, if we move the conversation from Maoris to children, we get into a more highly charged area.
Posted by Calleva Atrebatum (# 14058) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Calleva
Jesus rose from the dead a scientific claim? Eh?
The claim of the Resurrection (notwithstanding the mythological accounts we get from Tillich et. al.) is that a biologically alive man, did cease to be alive, and around 3 days later the blood in is veins and arteries started moving again, cells started to respire, his brain and nervous system in which there had previously been no action of electrical impulses or chemical neurotransmitters begin to operate again, allowing the return of bodily functions, such as breathing again and starting to digest the food that had been undigested at death... and finally that, with all these biological factors returning, consciousness returns. Now *that* is a scientific claim, and a very, very significant one that empirical evidence may appear to defy. Am I a cognitive imperialist / a bit of a bastard if I *tell* someone it's probably false?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Gosh - that says a heck of a lot more than the New Testament, which is very reticent to say what happened and how.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Calleva Atrebatum:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Calleva
Jesus rose from the dead a scientific claim? Eh?
The claim of the Resurrection (notwithstanding the mythological accounts we get from Tillich et. al.) is that a biologically alive man, did cease to be alive, and around 3 days later the blood in is veins and arteries started moving again, cells started to respire, his brain and nervous system in which there had previously been no action of electrical impulses or chemical neurotransmitters begin to operate again, allowing the return of bodily functions, such as breathing again and starting to digest the food that had been undigested at death... and finally that, with all these biological factors returning, consciousness returns. Now *that* is a scientific claim, and a very, very significant one that empirical evidence may appear to defy.
No. It is simply a claim. A scientific claim would have some mechanism theorised. And, no, god does not count as such.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Calleva Atrebatum:
And as to an earlier point... (that the notion that inherent in the concepts of 'true' and 'false' is, as a first principle that doesn't need establishing, that it is preferable to believe the true and not believe the false....) I do sort-of believe that, but I couldn't tell you why. Why, really, is belief in something false a problem, allowing that that belief does no harm to the individual and/or others.
The reason I believe that is that it's really quite difficult - I'd say impossible - to explain or define a set of interdependent concepts, including truth, belief, knowledge, reason, justification, and so on, without taking it as read that beliefs ought to be true and ought not to be false.(*) Without that the whole lot become meaningless.
That's perhaps not to say that in special circumstances other considerations might not overrule it. But only in special circumstances.
(*) Simplified version. Many beliefs are approximations, and therefore true enough for the purposes we're using them for; even if experts would want to be more nuanced. e.g. Nelson won the Battle of Trafalgar.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Calleva Atrebatum:
The claim of the Resurrection (notwithstanding the mythological accounts we get from Tillich et. al.) is that a biologically alive man, did cease to be alive, and around 3 days later the blood in is veins and arteries started moving again, cells started to respire, his brain and nervous system in which there had previously been no action of electrical impulses or chemical neurotransmitters begin to operate again, allowing the return of bodily functions, such as breathing again and starting to digest the food that had been undigested at death... and finally that, with all these biological factors returning, consciousness returns. Now *that* is a scientific claim, and a very, very significant one that empirical evidence may appear to defy. Am I a cognitive imperialist / a bit of a bastard if I *tell* someone it's probably false?
Firstly, you're making considerably more claims about the physiology of Jesus' risen body than the New Testament does.
Secondly, that Jesus' body was raised is presumably an empirical claim. That is, suitably placed observers were able to tell whether or not the tomb was empty or not, and whether or not Jesus had appeared in a locked room or not. That doesn't make it scientific. The exact demarcation between scientific claims and non-scientific claims is fuzzy, but still one mark of scientific claims is that they're established by repeatable observations. Claims about one-off events that don't leave discernable traces behind them are thus seldom scientific. That Napoleon crowned himself Emperor of the French is not a scientific claim but a historical claim.
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
I agree with Raptor Eye.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If one takes any given religious/philosophical outlook, one will find many examples of lives lived more positively for each. Since all outlooks cannot be true, many have lived in untruth with no discernible harm.
Also, given there is no provable "truth", who is to say what is true with any real authority?
'No discernable harm' physically/mentally/spiritually? According to whom? As you have said yourself, opinions vary.
When God gives someone authority to tell spiritual truth, which comes from God, he also provides the proof.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If one takes any given religious/philosophical outlook, one will find many examples of lives lived more positively for each. Since all outlooks cannot be true, many have lived in untruth with no discernible harm.
Also, given there is no provable "truth", who is to say what is true with any real authority?
'No discernable harm' physically/mentally/spiritually? According to whom? As you have said yourself, opinions vary.
When God gives someone authority to tell spiritual truth, which comes from God, he also provides the proof.
Right. So let's have the link then.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Right. So let's have the link then.
Jesus Christ.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Bring him 'round for tea, and then we shall talk.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
Indeed.
A not-insignificant number of people suffering ailments experience relief from their symptoms by ingesting placebos. In fact, as the link I posted above points out, some people even experience side-effects from placebos that would normally occur only for those taking actual medication, so it seems apparent that humans are not especially adept at recognizing truth, or falsity, or at distinguishing between the two.
It appears that at least some effects we experience from our beliefs, whether beneficial or detrimental, are simply projections of our expectations concerning those beliefs.
[ 14. October 2013, 01:10: Message edited by: Porridge ]
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Calleva Atrebatum:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Ignorance is bliss so give me ignorance?
This, really, is one of the main issues of why I wrote the OP, which stemmed from a long conversation at a friend's house the other day: namely, that they believed it was better to believe a lie (or several lies) and to persist in this if it made them happier than believing the truth would. I just cannot imagine or even empathise with any state of affairs where I'd rather believe a lie - I would far rather be miserable as a result of truth, than content by a lie (and I'd be especially pissed off if I found out that my happiness about something was down to believing in a lie.) So no, ignorance isn't bliss - it's a hellish prison and one made worse by warrant of not knowing it's there.
Ignorance is the Matrix?
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
originally posted by SusanDoris:
all statements which purport to tell truths about God/god/s especially when reported to children as truth, however well-intentioned the information-giver, are false.
Now, see, that's just epistemic arrogance right there. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by SusanDoris:
all statements which purport to tell truths about God/god/s especially when reported to children as truth, however well-intentioned the information-giver, are false.
Now, see, that's just epistemic arrogance right there.
Well, yes, as stated.
I prefer this is what I believe and this is why to statements of this is truth and all else lies!
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by SusanDoris:
all statements which purport to tell truths about God/god/s especially when reported to children as truth, however well-intentioned the information-giver, are false.
Now, see, that's just epistemic arrogance right there.
Yes, and I'm quite happy to agree with you there. I did think of modifying the post slightly, but as I am as certain as I can be that there isn't going to be posted the one piece of factual information that will change me from a non-believer to a believer, I decided against it this time.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
On the news this morning, there was an item from India in connection with the hurricane. A young man said he was alive because of God. Does that belief cause harm? No - and I could add, 'of course not'. But in a small way it does. The reasons for the very low number of deaths is mainly the practical actions taken by the Indian government. Perhaps a more practical, non-believing attitude by the population in general, rather than a reliance on God,might just make for greater safety and forthought? I think so.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Aye SusanDoris, praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Calleva Atrebatum:
But many beliefs do seem very abstract... don't they? Like, let's say my above example about visits to a psychic: should my (entirely hypothetical) friend/family member try to dissuade me from visiting, even if the visits only provide emotional comfort and are never acted on?
We do not exist in a vacuum. We like to believe that our actions and ideas can be compartmentalized and quarantined and no one can justifiably say anything about them because they only affect us. But that is a fundamentally false premise.
As well as the harm to yourself (i.e. in disabling your ability to tell truth from lies, convincing you of a false way of thinking about the world which may lead you to more, or worse forms of deception etc.) there are other problems with your actions:
1) You are financially rewarding a con-artist and encouraging them to continue decieving others some of whom may be more prone to being financially damaged or emotionally addicted to the deceit.
2) Others who hear of you seeing the psychic will be encouraged that it is true and valuable, and this will propogate 1)
But some false comforts may not have such consequences on the world, on the encouragement of the deceiver, and the leading of others into deceit. Ignoring your example, the question is whether if someone holds a belief that is false but derives comfort from it, then should you seek to dissuade them from that belief, even though you are taking their comfort from them. This has come up on dead horses when we think about creationists. But it touches I think on all forms of evangelism.
It boils down to what we understand truth to be. Do we think of it as a subjective experience, each version equally valid to each person? Or do we hold to the idea that there is an objective truth? And if we hold to this, there is another question. Does this objective truth have any effect on us? Is it mere knowledge, to be filed away once known. Or do we beleive that "the Truth will set you free." (John 8:32).
It is a question of the purpose of ideas as well. Do we believe that the value of an idea is based on how happy or content it makes us feel, or does the value derive from its accordance with external reality. If accepting a truth makes us feel bad does that mean the truth should be rejected? This is often the case, but it shouldn't be. Not if we want to interact sucessfully with anything outside ourselves.
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
quote:
Isn't it in fact actually the right, proper and laudable thing to do for them to preach and convert the Maori if the Christian belief is true? Not so much cognitive imperialism as cognitive liberation.
In some other universe where the truth of Christianity has been established by God deciding that the Divine hiddenness thing was on balance not a smart move, then that would be the case.
That's this universe.
"Surely you have heard about the...mystery made known to me by revelation,...In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to people in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets." (Eph 3:2-5)
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm curious how you're going to demonstrate to Maoris that their beliefs are false, and yours (assuming here a Christian view), are true. Will it be a version of 'because I say so'? Or maybe something a bit more sophisticated, like 'it's true because the Bible says it is'?
Or maybe, 'your ancestors cannot possibly be alive and helping you right now, but if you become a Christian, you might be able to meet them in heaven'?
It just sounds like epistemic arrogance to me.
We cannot. Only Jesus can reveal Truth. All Christians can do is point them to Him. It is up to Christians to preach the gospel. It is up to others to believe it or not. We cannot argue people into the Kingdom using rhetoric and demonstrations, sophisticated or otherwise.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
It's funny how so many Christians argue that other people should be separated from their "false beliefs" because knowing the Truth is more important, but once it's their own beliefs that are being disproved they break out the Puddleglum and assert that "even if it's not real I'm going to act as if it is, because it's better".
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's funny how so many Christians argue that other people should be separated from their "false beliefs" because knowing the Truth is more important, but once it's their own beliefs that are being disproved they break out the Puddleglum and assert that "even if it's not real I'm going to act as if it is, because it's better".
I've never heard any Christians say that. Who are you talking about?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
It's just a general observation. We've had threads in the past where Christians have heartily supported Puddleglum's Wager, and we've had threads (including this one) where Christians have said we should only believe what is True. I guess it's possible that it was never the same people saying both things, but even then the existence of both strands of thought in the Christian tradition is quite interesting, wouldn't you say?
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by SusanDoris:
all statements which purport to tell truths about God/god/s especially when reported to children as truth, however well-intentioned the information-giver, are false.
Now, see, that's just epistemic arrogance right there.
OK. Let's try the actual factual version - SusanDoris overstated.
Throughout history every mystery ever solved has turned out to be ... not magic. And not God and not miraculous either. And much that was thought to be miraculous has been explained as not. The divine currently has a 0% success rate as a beyond reasonable doubt explanation for anything.
No, this isn't proof that there is no divine. Merely strong evidence that the deeper you look the more wonderous the world looks ... and the less miraculous.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Throughout history every mystery ever solved has turned out to be ... not magic. And not God and not miraculous either. And much that was thought to be miraculous has been explained as not. The divine currently has a 0% success rate as a beyond reasonable doubt explanation for anything.
No, this isn't proof that there is no divine. Merely strong evidence that the deeper you look the more wonderous the world looks ... and the less miraculous.
Some might say the more miraculous!
The miracles of Jesus would still be considered to be miracles today.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Some might say the more miraculous!
The miracles of Jesus would still be considered to be miracles today.
Or they would be considered myths, tall stories, and shaggy dog stories that didn't actually happen. And people would document what did happen after about the third time.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
To further Justinian's point, there were undoubtedly some people during Hitler's rise to power who sincerely believed in the Third Reich, the stated aims of Hitler's party, that they belonged to a super-race destined to rule the world, etc. etc.
Some people would claim the problem here was that these individuals subscribed to a false belief.
Is that really the problem? Or is it that belief itself, when held passionately enough, encourages the suspension of the critical faculties?
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by SusanDoris:
all statements which purport to tell truths about God/god/s especially when reported to children as truth, however well-intentioned the information-giver, are false.
Now, see, that's just epistemic arrogance right there.
Yes, and I'm quite happy to agree with you there. I did think of modifying the post slightly, but as I am as certain as I can be that there isn't going to be posted the one piece of factual information that will change me from a non-believer to a believer, I decided against it this time.
Once again, just because something can't be empirically verified doesn't mean it is false. The statement that all statements can't be empirically verified cannot be empirically verified. So, your arrogance is based on a load of philosophical nonsense.
I'm not about to change what I teach my daughter based on a load of philosophical nonsense you accept as true.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
[ 14. October 2013, 12:15: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
To further Justinian's point, there were undoubtedly some people during Hitler's rise to power who sincerely believed in the Third Reich, the stated aims of Hitler's party, that they belonged to a super-race destined to rule the world, etc. etc.
Some people would claim the problem here was that these individuals subscribed to a false belief.
Is that really the problem? Or is it that belief itself, when held passionately enough, encourages the suspension of the critical faculties?
Yes, the most dangerous people are the idealists, particularly when they become zealous, because then, they not only think that they are right, but they are determined that you will also be right, in the same way as they are! I suppose Hitler has been one of the supreme utopians of the modern age. Stalin less so, as he was a cynical bastard really, and probably didn't believe a word of it.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Throughout history every mystery ever solved has turned out to be ... not magic. And not God and not miraculous either. And much that was thought to be miraculous has been explained as not. The divine currently has a 0% success rate as a beyond reasonable doubt explanation for anything.
No, this isn't proof that there is no divine. Merely strong evidence that the deeper you look the more wonderous the world looks ... and the less miraculous.
That's a fundamental misunderstanding of miracle IMO. As Wikipedia summarizes: "A miracle is often considered to be an event not ascribable to the laws of nature, therefore outside or beyond nature. Yet God may work with the laws of nature to perform what are considered miracles. Theologians say that, with divine providence, God regularly works through created nature."
Therefore, by God's involvement nature itself becomes miraculous. Something being naturally explainable doesn't prevent it being miraculous, or an Act of God. Otherwise you only believe in the 'God of the Gaps', who is a very small God indeed and getting smaller by the day.
As Dietrich Bonhoeffer said: "...how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know."
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
SusanDoris: On the news this morning, there was an item from India in connection with the hurricane. A young man said he was alive because of God. Does that belief cause harm? No - and I could add, 'of course not'. But in a small way it does. The reasons for the very low number of deaths is mainly the practical actions taken by the Indian government. Perhaps a more practical, non-believing attitude by the population in general, rather than a reliance on God,might just make for greater safety and forthought? I think so.
I don't see the Indian government refraining from taking practical actions because they are leaving things in the hands of God/gods. In fact, I see very few people who stop taking care of their own safety because of this.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It's a false dichotomy, isn't it? As if believing in God would actually make you careless about stuff. I haven't noticed that in religious people; properly speaking, they should be more careful, as they see life as a gift to be cherished.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's just a general observation. We've had threads in the past where Christians have heartily supported Puddleglum's Wager,
Really? I'll have to take your word for it. I'd be surprised to see a Christian take such a position so baldly.
In any case, Puddleglum's Wager was apparently Lewis' attempt to present Descartes' Ontological Proof in a form applicable for children, but I think its an extremely flawed presentation since it misrepresents the Proof IMO. Whether Lewis believed it himself as expressed by Puddleglum is another question, but if he intended it to be a simplified version of the Ontological Proof then the position is certainly not as simple as "believe it even if its not true", even if that's how it comes across in his speech. Puddleglum's position therefore would be more like, "since I can imagine a better world, that's proof for its existence", (which is a rubbish argument anyway IMO, but it helped him break the Witch's spell).
I'd be interested if you could link to any Christian who does argue for such a position as "believe it even if its not true" though.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Throughout history every mystery ever solved has turned out to be ... not magic. And not God and not miraculous either. And much that was thought to be miraculous has been explained as not. The divine currently has a 0% success rate as a beyond reasonable doubt explanation for anything.
No, this isn't proof that there is no divine. Merely strong evidence that the deeper you look the more wonderous the world looks ... and the less miraculous.
That's a fundamental misunderstanding of miracle IMO.
And a fundamental misunderstanding of God (as you rightly pointed out)
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, the equation of God with magic always puzzles me, since the intelligibility of the universe has been a central plank in some arguments for theism. And intelligibility surely rests on non-magic. That is the basis for Darwinian theodicy, for example, that God does not intervene to save the wounded animal, as that would be magical, and therefore, unintelligible.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
SusanDoris: On the news this morning, there was an item from India in connection with the hurricane. A young man said he was alive because of God. Does that belief cause harm? No - and I could add, 'of course not'. But in a small way it does. The reasons for the very low number of deaths is mainly the practical actions taken by the Indian government. Perhaps a more practical, non-believing attitude by the population in general, rather than a reliance on God,might just make for greater safety and forthought? I think so.
I don't see the Indian government refraining from taking practical actions because they are leaving things in the hands of God/gods. In fact, I see very few people who stop taking care of their own safety because of this.
Her post does reflect a lack of critical thinking. I thought that was important to New Atheist types. Fundamentalists are fundamentalists.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Beeswax Altar: Her post does reflect a lack of critical thinking. I thought that was important to New Atheist types. Fundamentalists are fundamentalists.
I think you are being to harsh on her. Although many of her posts are based on arguments that don't stand the test of logic, at least she is trying out her arguments against us, to see what our reactions will be. I have the impression that underneath all of this, she has a real interest in finding out what Christians think. Not all New Atheists have this interest.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
As if believing in God would actually make you careless about stuff.
How about all those people saying climate change can't be a real problem because God is in charge of the world and wouldn't let us destroy it?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Marvin the Martian: How about all those people saying climate change can't be a real problem because God is in charge of the world and wouldn't let us destroy it?
Yes, in this case religion can be a bad thing. I don't share their beliefs.
(Although the version I hear most often is "Climate change can't be a real problem because God will whisk the believers away from the world before it is destroyed.")
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I have the impression that underneath all of this, she has a real interest in finding out what Christians think.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Sweet Jesus LeRoc. You're wronger than a wrong thing on a wrong day. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I know some atheists who are interested in Christian ideas, and some who know a lot about them, but they seem to be outweighed by those who are scornful. I don't see Susan as either really; she is a fundamentalist really, or if you like, she is certain she is right. This is rather boring, as it is in the religious.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, the equation of God with magic always puzzles me, since the intelligibility of the universe has been a central plank in some arguments for theism. And intelligibility surely rests on non-magic. That is the basis for Darwinian theodicy, for example, that God does not intervene to save the wounded animal, as that would be magical, and therefore, unintelligible.
Magic involves suspension of the laws we can observe govern our universe. As do gods. Magic v. miracle, where is the difference in the internal logic?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, the equation of God with magic always puzzles me, since the intelligibility of the universe has been a central plank in some arguments for theism. And intelligibility surely rests on non-magic. That is the basis for Darwinian theodicy, for example, that God does not intervene to save the wounded animal, as that would be magical, and therefore, unintelligible.
Magic involves suspension of the laws we can observe govern our universe. As do gods. Magic v. miracle, where is the difference in the internal logic?
Sorry, I can't follow your syntax here, especially, 'as do gods'.
However, historically, there have obviously been different kinds of arguments for gods or God, and in an odd way, there are opposed arguments vis a vis magic.
One argument is that God does magic/miracles, e.g. walking on water.
However, there has been another argument that God does not do magic. This is the argument from intelligibility, since magic would produce a non-intelligible reality, unless it was repeatable magic, I suppose, in which case, it might be called nature.
Christianity is particularly interesting, since both arguments are extant - I believe that the intelligibility argument is linked with Pope Benedict, but don't have a link. However, it is also historically a traditional argument, e.g. Spinoza, Aquinas.
[ 14. October 2013, 14:57: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Magic involves suspension of the laws we can observe govern our universe. As do gods.
I don't know about whichever gods you're talking about, but the Christian God does not require suspension of natural laws to be and to act. They are His laws after all so why should He need to subvert or break them.
Sometimes He may choose to, perhaps to make a point that He is not bound by them, but He does not need to, and mostly He appears to work within the natural laws, instead of without them. And perhaps even on the occasions where He acts without them, it ony appears this way to us because we don't understand the mechanisms of His actions.
[ 14. October 2013, 15:15: Message edited by: Hawk ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Surely, there's a big difference here between God and gods. God, at least in the Abrahamic traditions, is often reckoned to be Reason itself, or if you like, Mind. This connects with the argument from intelligibility, although probably indirectly. I mean that you can't directly infer God from an intelligible universe. However, that takes us into a morass of unpleasant neo-Aristotelian stuff about teleology and so on.
Anyway, going back, gods as far as I can see, were often not reckoned to be particularly rational at all, or even benign. Some of them seem closely connected with natural phenomena, some with human activities like war and domestic life.
Of course, you could argue that Yahweh made the transition from one to t'other - from a tribal god to a universal God of reason and love. I think some Christians don't like that idea.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
justinian and LeRoc
Thank you for your posts!
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
The connection between magic, intelligibility and a Darwinian theodicy is interesting, and this is a boiled down version of it.
1. Pain is beneficial to animals, since it provides a warning against danger, injury, sickness, and so on.
2. Connected with this is the idea that pain has evolved in animals as an aid to survival.
3. If God exists, he could presumably intervene to rescue animals who are in pain.
4. However, if he did this, it would be a magical act, that is, an interruption to the regularity of nature.
5. Furthermore, magic is arbitrary and non-intelligible.
6. Most people agree that the universe is intelligible.
7. Therefore, if God intervened in the cause of animals in pain, the universe would be less intelligible, and might even be highly non-intelligible.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Still not seeing a major difference between god and magic.
What difference is there? Your contention, quetzalcoatl, seems to be that since Christianity has an internal logic, that this is sufficient. However, belief still requires an act of faith. Pure faith.
Hawk, replace magic with God and the argument is identical. All that separates is that pesky word
faith.
Understand, I do not have any issues with theism in and of itself. Some theists however make me crazy.
ETA:Ditto atheists
[ 14. October 2013, 17:55: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
lilBuddha
Now, in turn, I am baffled by your phrase, the 'internal logic' of Christianity, since I don't recollect referring to that.
The medieval idea was that the universe is intelligible, because God is rational, or in fact, is Mind. This is quite distinct from magic.
One way of phrasing it, is that this intelligibility is perceived by intelligence (us), and created by intelligence (God), but, as I said, I don't think this a knock-down argument at all, (there aren't any). Yes, it requires faith.
Incidentally, this is not in itself a Christian idea - it is found in Islam, Judaism, and probably other religions as well.
[ 14. October 2013, 18:21: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The problem with false beliefs is that when you act upon them, you probably won't get the result you are looking for. Because you're acting on a false premise.
Even worse: once in awhile you will get the result you are looking for, even if by random chance. Then a bad habit is reinforced. It's like gambling. Reasoning abundantly shows that casino gamblers will lose in the long run. But people addictively gamble because occasionally they have "won," so they continue to believe or
hope that they will get rich. BF Skinner's operant conditioning explains this phenomenon beautifully: behavior intermittently rewarded is difficult to extinguish.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Although there are other, interesting, accounts of gambling addiction - for example, that some gamblers like losing, or need to lose, or are addicted to losing, and so on. This is along the lines of some criminals wanting to be caught.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Incidentally, this is not in itself a Christian idea - it is found in Islam, Judaism, and probably other religions as well.
It's fundamental to Greek philosophy, which is probably where they all got it from.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Eh up Silchester 'lad'. It certainly is. Ignorance is hell. That of others acutely for me since yesterday. As Sartre said.
I am finally, unbelievably, at the point with church, of what's the point. Yesterday's dose of charismatic heterodoxy is the straw that's broken this camel's back.
With a typical loop of cognitive dissonance, it's been a long time coming. And it hurts. Ah well. Pruning always does. God surely chastises whom He loves ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
[
If the person accepts that the existence of the dead relatives the psychic is talking to is "false", how does it help them?
If they don't know its false, but everybody else thinks its false - that's different.
They are helped by not taking the actions suggested by the psychic such as giving the psychic tens of thousands of dollars for candles or to keep in "safe place".
More generally barring fraud by psychic my personal belief is that there's usually a richer relationship with more to be gained by connecting with other people in the real world rather than staring into a fiction.
Close your eyes and use the force is not a good way to pilot for most of us.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Bit of a false dichotomy, there, isn't there? Putting my Jungian hat on (ow!), staring into a fiction for some people seems essential, although, not, I agree, if it involves fraud. For example, consulting one's own dreams, drawings, stories, journals, and so on, may be highly enjoyable and beneficial, and not inimical to meeting real people, in fact, it may help it. As to dead ancestors, well, in some cultures it probably works. The power of the archetype, I suppose.
Posted by Grokesx (# 17221) on
:
quote:
"Surely you have heard about the...mystery made known to me by revelation,...In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to people in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets." (Eph 3:2-5)
Still hidden from me, I'm afraid. And presumably Hindus, Moslems, Buddhists and Maoris, too.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Bit of a false dichotomy, there, isn't there? Putting my Jungian hat on (ow!), staring into a fiction for some people seems essential, although, not, I agree, if it involves fraud. For example, consulting one's own dreams, drawings, stories, journals, and so on, may be highly enjoyable and beneficial, and not inimical to meeting real people, in fact, it may help it. As to dead ancestors, well, in some cultures it probably works. The power of the archetype, I suppose.
I believe the thread is about believing in things that are false. It's one thing to read fiction and enjoy it and use it to ponder the world. It's another to believe it's true and ignore the reality it contradicts.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Still not seeing a major difference between god and magic.
...
Hawk, replace magic with God and the argument is identical. All that separates is that pesky word
faith.
Not really sure what you mean lilBuddha. You're saying you don't see a major difference between god and God? Your posts are very obscure at the moment I'm afraid. if you're responding to something I've said, please explain what you mean. My previous post explained how God and magic are not synonymous. Magic requires the breaking of natural laws, God doesn't.
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
quote:
"Surely you have heard about the...mystery made known to me by revelation,...In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to people in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets." (Eph 3:2-5)
Still hidden from me, I'm afraid. And presumably Hindus, Moslems, Buddhists and Maoris, too.
Hidden to such people because God has not yet revealed Himself to them through His Spirit. Yet anyone who asks will receive, anyone who seeks will find, and anyone who knocks will have the door opened to them.
[ 15. October 2013, 09:50: Message edited by: Hawk ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Puddleglum's position therefore would be more like, "since I can imagine a better world, that's proof for its existence", (which is a rubbish argument anyway IMO, but it helped him break the Witch's spell).
I read it more like "since I can imagine a world so much more complete, complex, and full of life than yours" rather than simply "better". There was additional justification that all 3 of them seemed to have the same detailed fantasy.
I also read some of "The Giants and Trolls win. Let us die on the right side, with Father Odin." in it, which Lewis was fond of, and I think he is expressing the idea that the superior morality is the superior morality irrespective of the impossibility of victory if their hoped-for-world turned out to be non-existent.
And yes, it broke the witches spell as well.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Throughout history every mystery ever solved has turned out to be ... not magic. And not God and not miraculous either.
That's what 'solved' means. Duh.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
That's also gibberish, as how do you realize that something is 'not God'? By agreeing that it's part of nature and not magic? See above.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, the most dangerous people are the idealists, particularly when they become zealous, because then, they not only think that they are right, but they are determined that you will also be right, in the same way as they are!
No. The second most dangerous people are the idealists, trying to change things for the better. The most dangerous people are, in fact, the cynics, opposing every possible positive change on the grounds that "That will never work" or "It's never been done before" or "It's the way of the world" or "It isn't the right time". And as such the cynics are always on the side of perpetuating injustice. Without blind, bull-headed idealists who wouldn't take no for an answer no positive changes would have been made.
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
That's a fundamental misunderstanding of miracle IMO. As Wikipedia summarizes: "A miracle is often considered to be an event not ascribable to the laws of nature, therefore outside or beyond nature. Yet God may work with the laws of nature to perform what are considered miracles. Theologians say that, with divine providence, God regularly works through created nature."
Therefore, by God's involvement nature itself becomes miraculous. Something being naturally explainable doesn't prevent it being miraculous, or an Act of God. Otherwise you only believe in the 'God of the Gaps', who is a very small God indeed and getting smaller by the day.
The problem is that without genuine miracles and a God who is overtly active, you have a God who is utterly indistinguishable within the bounds of this world from a world without a God. And yet has a massive, direct, and personal bearing on the next world. If God behaves the way you say it implies that God does not want to be known directly. Or that God does not exist and humans, the supreme pattern creators, are inventing this explanation called God.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Justinian
Nice point about cynics, but they are idealists, aren't they?
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
The problem is that without genuine miracles and a God who is overtly active, you have a God who is utterly indistinguishable within the bounds of this world from a world without a God.
How would you know what a world without a God looks like? And how can you compare that to this world?
And why do you deny God's natural miracles by saying they are not 'genuine miracles'? I think you mean 'supernatural' rather than 'genuine'. Something doesn't need to be supernatural to be from God though.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
How would you know what a world without a God looks like? And how can you compare that to this world?
One that ran only on the rules findable through science? And the gaps that can also be roughly found (science can never have all the answers). Hint: that is this world. It's also the world that we get if God is presumed to work through natural forces, making God indistinguishable from not doing anything.
[ 15. October 2013, 12:55: Message edited by: Justinian ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
How would you know what a world without a God looks like? And how can you compare that to this world?
One that ran only on the rules findable through science? And the gaps that can also be roughly found (science can never have all the answers). Hint: that is this world. It's also the world that we get if God is presumed to work through natural forces, making God indistinguishable from not doing anything.
That, for me, is incorrect, since I don't need miracles or magic to experience a God who knows and loves me. Of course, I don't know if this is indistinguishable from a world without God, since I can't conceive of that.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That, for me, is incorrect, since I don't need miracles or magic to experience a God who knows and loves me. Of course, I don't know if this is indistinguishable from a world without God, since I can't conceive of that.
You don't need miracles or magic to experience a God who knows or loves you whether one exists or not. Derren Brown, an atheist, was able to give a hardline atheist a religious experience in under an hour (Fear and Faith part two).
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
And why do you deny God's natural miracles by saying they are not 'genuine miracles'? I think you mean 'supernatural' rather than 'genuine'. Something doesn't need to be supernatural to be from God though.
The problem here, though, is that you talk of 'God' or 'supernatural', but before you go any further, I wonder whether you should be obliged to attempt the impossible, i.e. to define God since there are whole layers of assumptions and complexity, not to mention regression, in that word. Supernatural is not a problem because it is easily understood as a concept.
And of course it goes without saying that I'm very much nodding in agreement with justinian's posts.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
God wouldn't be God if God could be easily defined in words. Why would one expect God to be easily explained by something as limited as human language? Why should Hawk feel obliged to do anything? You never feel obliged to justify your logical positivism.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
How would you know what a world without a God looks like? And how can you compare that to this world?
One that ran only on the rules findable through science? And the gaps that can also be roughly found (science can never have all the answers). Hint: that is this world. It's also the world that we get if God is presumed to work through natural forces, making God indistinguishable from not doing anything.
The world we have is one that is intelligible through careful observation. This is also a world with God. Therefore a world without God can be presumed to be anything other than this, (for instance ancient civilisations imagined it as a world of formless chaos, or akin to a stormy sea - our imaginations may be more fertile). With nothing concrete to base such a world on except random speculation, it is impossible to adaquately compare the two however.
Your mistake is to assume that just because this world is or can be intelligible to us, this precludes God. I assume the opposite, that God is a God of order and law. You assume that God is chaotic, that he acts and operates outside of intelligible and observable laws, that he is 'magic' (i.e. something we can't explain or makes no observable sense, it just happens). Such a chaotic god is like the gods imagined by the pagan religions, whose gods were capricious and could not be relied on. But the Lord God is a God of the Law, who is the same yesterday, today and forever, and whose promises can be trusted.
These different assumptions lead to our different conclusions on the same evidence. You see an intelligible world that runs on observable laws and ask where the gaps are that could allow an unintelligible (or magic) god to exist. I see such a world and see the hand of the Creator of Order and the Maker of Law in it all.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
The problem here, though, is that you talk of 'God' or 'supernatural', but before you go any further, I wonder whether you should be obliged to attempt the impossible, i.e. to define God since there are whole layers of assumptions and complexity, not to mention regression, in that word. Supernatural is not a problem because it is easily understood as a concept.
Supernatural isn't easily understood as a concept. It only means 'other than natural'. It is a handy umbrella term for 'everything else we can't or won't try to explain', which is hardly much of a definition.
In terms of defining God, the best I can do is to point you to Jesus.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That, for me, is incorrect, since I don't need miracles or magic to experience a God who knows and loves me.
How can you experience God without miracles or magic? How can something that is not part of the universe be felt only through things that are?
quote:
Of course, I don't know if this is indistinguishable from a world without God, since I can't conceive of that.
It's completely indistinguishable. The sun would still shine, the grass would still grow, people would still be people. Hell, they'd even still believe a whole bunch of crazy-ass shit about whichever god(s) they believe in. The only difference would be that there wouldn't actually be a god - but of course there would be no way to prove that. There would be no difference whatsoever between the two, which of course leads one to wonder - which world do we actually live in?
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
The world we have is one that is intelligible through careful observation. This is also a world with God. Therefore a world without God can be presumed to be anything other than this,
That's a non-sequiteur. You can not say "Systems like this do this therefore systems without this do that."
quote:
Your mistake is to assume that just because this world is or can be intelligible to us, this precludes God. I assume the opposite, that God is a God of order and law. You assume that God is chaotic, that he acts and operates outside of intelligible and observable laws, that he is 'magic'
Quite the contrary. I assume that any observable being operates according to the rules they themselves follow. I further assume that that applies to any entity. Even chaotic systems have rules they follow once you understand them well enough - and apparent chaos takes at least second order interactions. Every being is true to its own nature, and it takes intelligence to change that nature.
quote:
These different assumptions lead to our different conclusions on the same evidence. You see an intelligible world that runs on observable laws and ask where the gaps are that could allow an unintelligible (or magic) god to exist.
No. I ask why unless either God does not exist or God wants to be left alone, God does not manifest clearly. It's about psychology, not physics.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It's a good question - why does God not manifest clearly. My answer is that he does, if you divest yourself of yourself.
I suppose the reply might be that that's unfair - why should people be expected to do that?
Well, you are in the way, obviously.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's a good question - why does God not manifest clearly. My answer is that he does, if you divest yourself of yourself.
I suppose the reply might be that that's unfair - why should people be expected to do that?
Well, you are in the way, obviously.
Yeah. If only God had made us, we would not have these problems...
--Tom Clune
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's a good question - why does God not manifest clearly. My answer is that he does, if you divest yourself of yourself.
I suppose the reply might be that that's unfair - why should people be expected to do that?
Well, you are in the way, obviously.
Yeah. If only God had made us, we would not have these problems...
--Tom Clune
I don't see that. I have the ability to separate myself off from God, or from others, or from life, and to become a little god to myself. You might say that God would not create someone with that ability, but why not? As the Qu'ran says, there is no compulsion.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's a good question - why does God not manifest clearly. My answer is that he does, if you divest yourself of yourself.
I suppose the reply might be that that's unfair - why should people be expected to do that?
Well, you are in the way, obviously.
My reply isn't that it is unfair; altered states are interesting but this is the ground state for a reason. My reply is that The Christian God isn't the only thing that manifests if I divest myself of myself and open myself to everything. So do a range of other beings up to and including the Flying Spaghetti Monster if that's the direction I'm looking in at the time.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
My experience is that if you keep going, all those beings and phenomena themselves disappear, until you are left with nothing. However, if you then keep going, that nothing changes. However, I don't think there are concepts left now, hence, 'the cloud of unknowing'.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
The world we have is one that is intelligible through careful observation. This is also a world with God. Therefore a world without God can be presumed to be anything other than this,
That's a non-sequiteur. You can not say "Systems like this do this therefore systems without this do that."
Maybe you've misunderstood my argument. I am saying that: "if this world looks like this, then a different world will not look the same". I'm not trying to describe a world without God as I have no idea what such a world could look like, since I have nothing to base such a description on. I don't even think anything could exist without God. If you have a problem with such an argument please explain why. It’s not a non-sequiteur, so there must be another reason why you disagree with it.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Even chaotic systems have rules they follow once you understand them well enough - and apparent chaos takes at least second order interactions
Chaos doesn’t operate according to understandable rules. If it did it wouldn’t be chaos.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
These different assumptions lead to our different conclusions on the same evidence. You see an intelligible world that runs on observable laws and ask where the gaps are that could allow an unintelligible (or magic) god to exist.
No. I ask why unless either God does not exist or God wants to be left alone, God does not manifest clearly. It's about psychology, not physics.
He manifested clearly in the person of Jesus Christ.
Of course that wasn’t good enough for most people. Bit of a poor show. Perhaps you want God to manifest again? Maybe as someone more impressive than a lowly carpenter’s son this time. Perhaps you could describe exactly how God should manifest in such a clear way that would convince everyone and they wouldn’t call it a trick, or a hallucination, or aliens? I expect whatever you suggest still people would say it’s not clear enough. The Israelites saw God manifested pretty clearly as they were led out of Egypt by a pillar of fire and a pillar of cloud. Then by an all-singing, all-dancing mountain of fire and lightning. Yet they still complained that God wasn’t clear enough and quickly made themselves an idol instead. ‘There are none so blind as those who will not see’, after all.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's a good question - why does God not manifest clearly. My answer is that he does, if you divest yourself of yourself.
I suppose the reply might be that that's unfair - why should people be expected to do that?
Well, you are in the way, obviously.
I don't know what it means to divest yourself of yourself. It sounds like gnostic dualism to me.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Maybe you've misunderstood my argument. I am saying that: "if this world looks like this, then a different world will not look the same". I'm not trying to describe a world without God as I have no idea what such a world could look like, since I have nothing to base such a description on. I don't even think anything could exist without God. If you have a problem with such an argument please explain why. It’s not a non-sequiteur, so there must be another reason why you disagree with it.
You don't have any understanding of what such a world would be like. Therefore you describe it as chaotic. Right. One of these things is not like the other one.
quote:
Chaos doesn’t operate according to understandable rules. If it did it wouldn’t be chaos.
Chaotic systems = mathematical chaos. Which looks as if there are no rules but there actually are, albeit ones that are very sensitive to any slight change.
quote:
He manifested clearly in the person of Jesus Christ.
Or in other words he supposedly manifested as a human being roughly 2000 years ago, about whom many tall tales have been told. Everyone who saw him has been dead for over 1500 years and the only records we have of him are several books of mythology (some implausible, others outright rejected even by those who believe in his supposed supernatural nature) and some oral traditions of myths.
quote:
Perhaps you could describe exactly how God should manifest in such a clear way that would convince everyone and they wouldn’t call it a trick, or a hallucination, or aliens? I expect whatever you suggest still people would say it’s not clear enough.
So because some people have higher standards than others God should keep hiding for the past 1900 years.
quote:
The Israelites saw God manifested pretty clearly as they were led out of Egypt by a pillar of fire and a pillar of cloud.
Meanwhile, the Egyptians, who kept superb records by the standards of the time have no record of any such event. And none of the other evidence stacks up. In short that entire story is almost certainly fictional.
So your evidence is that a fictional story that those nearer the time will have had more evidence was fictional didn't convince the Israelites. Right. By only giving them fiction to go on rather than actual events, and fiction that clearly fell apart easily, God was indeed not clear enough. Or possibly God was - and wanted the discerning to realise that they were being fed fiction.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Maybe you've misunderstood my argument. I am saying that: "if this world looks like this, then a different world will not look the same". I'm not trying to describe a world without God as I have no idea what such a world could look like, since I have nothing to base such a description on. I don't even think anything could exist without God. If you have a problem with such an argument please explain why. It’s not a non-sequiteur, so there must be another reason why you disagree with it.
You don't have any understanding of what such a world would be like. Therefore you describe it as chaotic. Right. One of these things is not like the other one.
Ah, I understand why you got confused now. I was saying that this world is intelligible and a different world wouldn't be intelligible, so you assumed that constituted a 'description' of a world. My comment that I couldn’t describe what such an unintelligible world would look like, and I didn’t believe it could exist didn’t clarify my argument for you then?
We’re going round in circles since you seem to be desperate to twist my words into saying something I’m trying not to. It’s not really important anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Chaos doesn’t operate according to understandable rules. If it did it wouldn’t be chaos.
Chaotic systems = mathematical chaos. Which looks as if there are no rules but there actually are, albeit ones that are very sensitive to any slight change.
And again confusion arises from a misunderstanding of language. I'm not referring to mathematical chaos, I'm referring to an absence of order.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
He manifested clearly in the person of Jesus Christ.
Or in other words he supposedly manifested as a human being roughly 2000 years ago, about whom many tall tales have been told. Everyone who saw him has been dead for over 1500 years and the only records we have of him are several books of mythology (some implausible, others outright rejected even by those who believe in his supposed supernatural nature) and some oral traditions of myths.
So you flatly deny the gospel accounts. I think that’s pretty well established. Your loss. I could argue the point but there’s other threads for that. Suffice to say we disagree on the veracity and clearness of the gospel accounts of Jesus.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Perhaps you could describe exactly how God should manifest in such a clear way that would convince everyone and they wouldn’t call it a trick, or a hallucination, or aliens? I expect whatever you suggest still people would say it’s not clear enough.
So because some people have higher standards than others God should keep hiding for the past 1900 years.
God doesn’t hide from those who look for Him.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
The Israelites saw God manifested pretty clearly as they were led out of Egypt by a pillar of fire and a pillar of cloud.
Meanwhile, the Egyptians, who kept superb records by the standards of the time have no record of any such event. And none of the other evidence stacks up. In short that entire story is almost certainly fictional.
So your evidence is that a fictional story that those nearer the time will have had more evidence was fictional didn't convince the Israelites. Right. By only giving them fiction to go on rather than actual events, and fiction that clearly fell apart easily, God was indeed not clear enough. Or possibly God was - and wanted the discerning to realise that they were being fed fiction.
Who said anything about evidence? I was using the story of the Israelites as a parable to show how a group of people to whom God manifests Himself clearly can easily reject Him anyway. If you don’t think the parable is a true reflection of human nature that’s a different matter. I think it’s a pretty accurate portrayal.
Whether it historically occurred or not is unimportant. Though I believe it hasn’t been disproven and possibly did happen broadly the way it is presented in the OT. There’s other threads for that discussion as well though.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Ah, I understand why you got confused now. I was saying that this world is intelligible and a different world wouldn't be intelligible, so you assumed that constituted a 'description' of a world. My comment that I couldn’t describe what such an unintelligible world would look like, and I didn’t believe it could exist didn’t clarify my argument for you then?
It rings completely false for me. The natural state for things not interfered with is entropy. Order. Harmony. Life lives on the edge between order and chaos - but without anything acting things fall into a boring form of order. If this is a universe with an active God then one without a God would by its nature need to be no less sterile and no less ordered than this one.
quote:
And again confusion arises from a misunderstanding of language. I'm not referring to mathematical chaos, I'm referring to an absence of order.
And I'm saying that that's precisely the opposite of what would happen if you took movers out of the universe. I can see the view that you'd end up with sterile balls of rock ever ordering the universe. But the big questions aren't about why the universe heads towards heat death, but what created disorder out of nothing and the problem of abiogenisis - what sparked life.
If God was the bringer of chaos into the universe, that would make sense. Order, not so much.
quote:
So you flatly deny the gospel accounts. I think that’s pretty well established. Your loss. I could argue the point but there’s other threads for that. Suffice to say we disagree on the veracity and clearness of the gospel accounts of Jesus.
I believe that 2000 years ago there was an inspiring and vaguely apocalyptic preacher under the name Jesus of Nazareth, some of the teachings of whom were recorded by the gospel writers. I further believe that some of what the gospel writers wrote was fairly obvious bunk such as the tying the census to Quirinius being governor of Syria - two things that did not happen at the same time. All in a fairly obvious contortion to put in the claim that Jesus of Nazareth was actually born in Bethlehem in accordance with prophecy. Never mind the Herod connection and Herod being dead before Quirinius.
So if that's what you mean, no I don't believe the writers of the gospel were telling the whole truth or nothing but the truth. I believe this is pretty clear from reading the gospel. And if this means I deny the gospel, preferring truth and evidence, then yes I do.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
The Israelites saw God manifested pretty clearly as they were led out of Egypt by a pillar of fire and a pillar of cloud.
...
Who said anything about evidence? I was using the story of the Israelites as a parable to show how a group of people to whom God manifests Himself clearly can easily reject Him anyway.
So now you are saying that the ancient Israelites did not see the column of fire you explicitly claimed they did see the first time round.
Parables aren't evidence except of what people are trying to say. All you can say if you've now redefined a truth claim as a parable was that in some fictional circumstance if the ancient Israelites had seen a column of fire then they would still have behaved as if it hadn't happened.
But your first claim was in no way phrased as a parable. It was phrased as a claim of fact. You outright claimed that "The Israelites saw God manifested pretty clearly as they were led out of Egypt by a pillar of fire and a pillar of cloud." And this is one place where we are having problems. When I pin you down on what you actually said you are claiming that what you meant is something completely different.
quote:
If you don’t think the parable is a true reflection of human nature that’s a different matter. I think it’s a pretty accurate portrayal.
I think it's a pretty accurate portrayal of how some people think humans behave. And the sum total of what it says if it is a parable is that the message it is trying to get across is that people would behave that way if God had ever bothered to manifest rather than not doing so. It's making excuses.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
God wouldn't be God if God could be easily defined in words.
Hmmm,interesting thought. What would it (God) be? If one believes that God, and perhaps this should be limited to the Christian God, made everything and that must presumably include words, why make it so that none of those words can describe itself?
quote:
You never feel obliged to justify your logical positivism.
I would try and do so if I could, but I'm afraid I know my limitations when it comes to the use of the language of Philosophy.
'Obliged' was probably the wrong word in the first place; maybe 'it is incumbent upon' would have been a betterchoice.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
That's because God is seen as transcendent, which by definition, cannot be described. Well, people have stabs at it.
But it's not just true of God - I don't see how experience itself can be described really, except again in an approximate way. But you can never really capture das Ding an sich.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Suffice to say we disagree on the veracity and clearness of the gospel accounts of Jesus.
If something requires the observer to truly believe in it before it becomes clear, it's not really clear at all.
Posted by Cara (# 16966) on
:
Hawk, you said:
"God doesn't hide from those who look for him."
This short sentence is huge in meaning and if I could accept it as true, the world would suddenly become a completely different place.
But surely you as well as I know many people who have looked, and looked, and looked in all sincerity, but not found?
God remained hidden to them.
I'm especially interested in nineteenth-century loss of faith right now (as well as conversions from eg Anglicanism to Catholicism). Many of those who suffered doubts went through absolute agonies and positively yearned for God, for the certainty that there was a God, begged God to give them a sign that they could still believe. In losing faith they also lost, in many cases, respect of their peers, possibility of advancement in their chosen career, etc etc. So every incentive to keep on believing. But they couldn't, and God stayed hidden. For all their studying of the Gospels etc, they could not be sure. And of course this happens still today, though with fewer societal problems for the non-believer. People--especially perhaps those brought up in Christianity--yearn to hold on to their childhood faith but they can't. God eludes them.
Was it Pascal who has God saying to the searcher, you wouldn't search for me if you hadn't already found me?
This used to comfort me a lot but now I find myself thinking, well if the searcher is still searching, he doesn't feel he has found God at all! So God is still hiding...
Is it (would you say) that those who look for him very hard and very sincerely and do not find him are blinkered by their own preconceptions? But couldn't God remove those blinkers if he/she/it didn't want to remain hidden?
Of course there still has to be free will...but isn't the Holy Spirit there to guide us into seeking, and finding? Why does it so often not happen?
We aren't listening properly, perhaps?
Especially interesting today are those people brought up in unbelieving households who do go on to find God...
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
originally posted by SusanDoris:
Hmmm,interesting thought. What would it (God) be? If one believes that God, and perhaps this should be limited to the Christian God, made everything and that must presumably include words, why make it so that none of those words can describe itself?
God didn't create language any more than God created your kitchen table. The Christian doctrine of creation doesn't claim otherwise. God is God. Finite humanity cannot understand an infinite God unless God reveals Godself to humanity. According to Christianity, God revealed Godself through the Incarnation. You may say well if God exists and does such and such then I would believe. I doubt many more would. If they did, I question what good it would do.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
Perhaps it's preconceived ideas of who God is, and a desire to dictate how God will communicate, which might stand in the way of becoming conscious of God. There is no one guaranteed 'technique' that we can learn, nor should there be as God will not be manipulated.
Jesus is the greatest of gifts as God has given us himself in human form, but I wonder how many can see God in the crucified Christ?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Cara
Your post reminded me of various ideas about searching in Eastern religions, particularly the idea that it is precisely that which is a block.
Of course, one can't just transfer such ideas from one religion to another, but it's still worthwhile to ponder this. I suppose one idea in Buddhism is that the seeker might become very top-heavy with their own importance, and sort of, egocentricity, which is actually inimical to finding.
There is an interesting idea in Zen called the fall - not the same as the Christian one - which means that one abruptly ceases to seek, and then one finds. The ceasing is not really voluntary, it can happen just through tiredness.
But it's also the interesting idea that self is one of the primary obstacles to God, hence self-abandonment can be a path. But how does one abandon self? There is no how!
Posted by Cara (# 16966) on
:
quetzalcoatl
this is interesting, that the ego is in the way, and it's when one gives up that one can then find. This giving up and then finding makes sense to me, I've encountered it in the creative life--when you give up on a project and decide you actually can't see any way to do it--a sort of humble acceptance of not having the skill--then sometimes a new idea comes.
Similar perhaps to the idea "let go and let God" ?
I think the concept of the self as an obstacle to finding God is encountered in many Christian mystics too...other Shipmates I'm sure would know exactly which ones.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
A famous book is 'Abandonment to Divine Providence', by de Caussade, which is also translated, interestingly, as 'The Sacrament of the Present Moment'.
Both these themes are met with right across the mystical literature, inside and outside Christianity. I have sometimes thought that the present moment is a furnace, which burns up all the dross, yet at the same time, to stay there, is difficult, as the mind wanders. Yet sometimes, people just seem to fall into it with no effort, or sometimes just giving up and letting go. As Meister Eckhart says, 'to be empty of things is to be full of God'.
Yet sometimes I think being full of things is also being full of God!
Posted by Calleva Atrebatum (# 14058) on
:
I've been following the thread with interest, and feel just as insecure and distressed by the lack of ability for humans to find Supreme Truth now as I did at the start.
I hope - I really do hope - that Tillich et. al. are wrong, and that truth is not *only* subjectivity.
I am saddened, also, for how many people (not here in this forum, though) appear to think that Truth or its pursuit don't matter: it's one thing saying 'we can never know Absolute Truth' but a far more distressing thing, to my mind, to think 'meh, it doesn't matter.'
I remembered these words from Mill:
"Few human creatures would consent to be changed into any of the lower animals, for a promise of the fullest allowance of a beast's pleasures; no intelligent human being would consent to be a fool, no instructed person would be an ignoramus, no person of feeling and conscience would be selfish and base, even though they should be persuaded that the fool, the dunce, or the rascal is better satisfied with his lot than they are with theirs…"
Surely all, or almost all, humans wouldn't exchange a human mind for the physical pleasure of being an animal? Would they?! Would people really want animal pleasure more than Truth? Would people really rather be ignorant of Truth but happy? Seriously? Maybe it's so.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Isn't the distinction between animal pleasure and Truth a false one? I mean, it's too black and white. A lot of people get on with life, and try to find a workable solution to various issues, such as relationships, family, work, and so on.
Posted by Calleva Atrebatum (# 14058) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Isn't the distinction between animal pleasure and Truth a false one? I mean, it's too black and white. A lot of people get on with life, and try to find a workable solution to various issues, such as relationships, family, work, and so on.
*sigh*, you might be right, quetzalcoatl: but that, to me, is hollow and terrifying and nauseating. I don't want "shades of grey and complexity that kind-of works for family, work etc." I want a theory (a True theory) of All That Is. Sadly, it seems increasingly elusive. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
Hawk, you said:
"God doesn't hide from those who look for him."
This short sentence is huge in meaning and if I could accept it as true, the world would suddenly become a completely different place.
But surely you as well as I know many people who have looked, and looked, and looked in all sincerity, but not found?
God remained hidden to them.
An interesting post Cara. I'm not aware personally of anyone who sought and did not find so I can't comment in detail.
We can only speculate about other people's faith journeys (always dangerous to do - even with the benefit of detailed personal accounts we cannot be sure they are accurate, or written consciously or unconsciously to paint themselves in a more positive/definite light).
But in general in response to your comments, I think part of the issue is the definition of 'seeking'. It is true that we cannot know God 'fully' in this life, neither are most people given absolute certainty of God. If that absolute certainty, or complete knowledge and understanding of the divine is someone's goal for this world, then it is a foolish quest and the lack of complete success will indeed lead to despair and the falling away of faith. What we should do is constantly seek to know God better than we do now. To find God is a journey that is never complete before Heaven.
For those you mention who beg God to give them a sign so they can believe, I am struck by the wording of such a request. It is almost as though they want God to force them to believe something. If they want to believe then believe, without sign or surety. To trust God is a choice, an act of will, not something that God can or will force on us.
I do believe that those who genuinely seek God through His son Jesus, are not ignored by God. He responds to them, even if they are wrestling with doubts and fears. Sometimes especially at those moments.
I wish I could offer more words of certainty or comfort myself for such people who still feel God is entirely hidden despite their earnest seeking. But not knowing the struggles of others I cannot comment. All I have is faith in my Saviour (and that is weak and small).
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Calleva Atrebatum:
Would people really rather be ignorant of Truth but happy?
Yes. And why not?
Posted by Calleva Atrebatum (# 14058) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Calleva Atrebatum:
Would people really rather be ignorant of Truth but happy?
Yes. And why not?
Well, potentially:
1) It's inherent in the concepts of 'true' and 'false' a priori that the true things ought be believed and false things rejected, and how happy this does or doesn't make one is totally irrelevant.
2) False beliefs held with no falsifiability are, at best, a happiness resting on nothing which is unlikely to last any serious testing (e.g. by the appearance of good quality empirical testing) and at worst going to cause harm to self and others (e.g. if I'm made happy by visiting a psychic, or get comfort from a belief that Aids can be treated by eating sweet potato.)
3) Ignorance is a state which, if it could be seen from a state of non-ignorance, no one would ever desire - however blissful the physical pleasures of being ignorant. No one would desire to be a happy pig, if one was a human (even an unhappy human) and the only reason the pig seems to be happier as a pig is because it's never been the human.
4) I'm not sure you could ever be aware of All That Is and be truly unhappy - you'd derive real, palpable intellectual and psychological fulfilment (i.e. happiness, i.e. utility) from the simple fact of knowing Truth As It Is, than you could ever derive from ignorance and all the pleasure seeking it entails.
Posted by christianbuddhist (# 17579) on
:
I think to compare religion to (for instance) visiting a psychic is to confuse different language-games. Truth in the first does not equate to truth in the second. It's like asking whether War and Peace is more truthful than the manual for a jug kettle.
Posted by Calleva Atrebatum (# 14058) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by christianbuddhist:
I think to compare religion to (for instance) visiting a psychic is to confuse different language-games. Truth in the first does not equate to truth in the second. It's like asking whether War and Peace is more truthful than the manual for a jug kettle.
I buy the Language Games notion - and your example - but what I don't buy is that religion and psychic-visiting are different language games: they're both the same, just with different labels and different numbers of adherents. They're both part of the 'metaphysical claims' language game.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I think the search for absolute truth has been undermined in the postmodern age. I suppose this applies more to religion than some other systems of thought, although maybe politics still has its utopian strands.
One of the problems with belief in the absolute is that it can lead to totalitarianism, as with communism. I now know the truth, and if you don't agree, than I'm afraid that you will be invited to a re-education camp.
In a curious way, postmodernism has helped religion, since while it has criticized it fiercely as a 'grand narrative' or a form of absolutism, it has also validated it as one amongst many narratives and forms of praxis.
Of course, there is also the point about 'praxis not doxis', which I find very interesting, but perhaps o/t.
But I see postmodernism as permitting me to not know, which I find a relief.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Calleva Atrebatum:
1) It's inherent in the concepts of 'true' and 'false' a priori that the true things ought be believed and false things rejected, and how happy this does or doesn't make one is totally irrelevant.
Any philosophy that says happiness is irrelevant is a pretty poor one in my book.
quote:
2) False beliefs held with no falsifiability are, at best, a happiness resting on nothing which is unlikely to last any serious testing (e.g. by the appearance of good quality empirical testing) and at worst going to cause harm to self and others (e.g. if I'm made happy by visiting a psychic, or get comfort from a belief that Aids can be treated by eating sweet potato.)
Better a happiness resting on nothing than no happiness at all.
quote:
3) Ignorance is a state which, if it could be seen from a state of non-ignorance, no one would ever desire - however blissful the physical pleasures of being ignorant. No one would desire to be a happy pig, if one was a human (even an unhappy human) and the only reason the pig seems to be happier as a pig is because it's never been the human.
I envy many animals their uncomplicated, happy lives. Sometimes I think it would be wonderful if the biggest thing I had to worry about on a daily basis was which part of the pigsty to crap in.
quote:
4) I'm not sure you could ever be aware of All That Is and be truly unhappy - you'd derive real, palpable intellectual and psychological fulfilment (i.e. happiness, i.e. utility) from the simple fact of knowing Truth As It Is, than you could ever derive from ignorance and all the pleasure seeking it entails.
That does rather depend on what form All That Is actually takes. If you knew with absolute certainty that there was no God, no justice, no purpose and no meaning to life would that make you happy? Wouldn't you rather be able to persist in your belief that life has meaning and purpose, and that God is in His Heaven and All Will Be Well, even if that belief was false?
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl
I think the search for absolute truth has been undermined in the postmodern age. I suppose this applies more to religion than some other systems of thought, although maybe politics still has its utopian strands.
Well, if that is the case, then postmodernism is self-refuting. We can be assured that there is such a thing as objective truth, which cannot be wholly confined to the human or any creaturely mind, because total scepticism is self-refuting (unless we agree that we can never say anything at all to each other). Whenever scepticism is affirmed, there is always a check: we have objectively to affirm the validity of doubt in order to indulge in it. Therefore there is at least one certainty: the certainty that we doubt.
The statement "truth is impossible" is itself a statement of truth (at least in the mind of the person making it). Therefore it is self-refuting. Or the statement "truth is possible, but we can never know what it is" is also self-refuting, because if this statement is affirmed to be true, then we acknowledge that we can know at least one truth, which is the propositional content of that statement. And, of course, we then contradict ourselves, thus revealing that the statement is nonsense, and that truth is not only possible but actual.
You say that the undermining of absolute truth applies more to religion than some other systems of thought. Actually the real casualty is the philosophy of naturalism.
If all human ideation and ratiocination is merely an emergent property of entirely natural processes, then we can have no confidence that it actually reflects objective reality. After all, if we are nothing more than the products of a process of survival, then it follows that all our mental processes have evolved in order to fulfil an entirely utilitarian purpose. Therefore 'truth' becomes entirely pragmatic. We know that lies are useful - otherwise why would anyone believe them or tell them? Therefore utility is not a reliable judge of what is true. Here is a very good explanation.
This is why I find it quite mystifying when those who subscribe to the philosophy of naturalism (most atheists), talk as if they are the true guardians of reason and theists are running away from "the truth" - or, as Dawkins suggests: we should believe what is true irrespective of the bleak and grim implications. He assumes, of course, that his position is objectively true. But I question whether his position can actually sustain even the concept of truth, never mind whether the various details are true.
Truth only makes sense within a supernatural worldview, because reason itself cannot originate within nature. It is therefore 'above' (super) nature, and nature obeys it.
Posted by Cara (# 16966) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
Hawk, you said:
"God doesn't hide from those who look for him."
This short sentence is huge in meaning and if I could accept it as true, the world would suddenly become a completely different place.
But surely you as well as I know many people who have looked, and looked, and looked in all sincerity, but not found?
God remained hidden to them.
An interesting post Cara. I'm not aware personally of anyone who sought and did not find so I can't comment in detail.
We can only speculate about other people's faith journeys (always dangerous to do - even with the benefit of detailed personal accounts we cannot be sure they are accurate, or written consciously or unconsciously to paint themselves in a more positive/definite light).
But in general in response to your comments, I think part of the issue is the definition of 'seeking'. It is true that we cannot know God 'fully' in this life, neither are most people given absolute certainty of God. If that absolute certainty, or complete knowledge and understanding of the divine is someone's goal for this world, then it is a foolish quest and the lack of complete success will indeed lead to despair and the falling away of faith. What we should do is constantly seek to know God better than we do now. To find God is a journey that is never complete before Heaven.
For those you mention who beg God to give them a sign so they can believe, I am struck by the wording of such a request. It is almost as though they want God to force them to believe something. If they want to believe then believe, without sign or surety. To trust God is a choice, an act of will, not something that God can or will force on us.
I do believe that those who genuinely seek God through His son Jesus, are not ignored by God. He responds to them, even if they are wrestling with doubts and fears. Sometimes especially at those moments.
I wish I could offer more words of certainty or comfort myself for such people who still feel God is entirely hidden despite their earnest seeking. But not knowing the struggles of others I cannot comment. All I have is faith in my Saviour (and that is weak and small).
Interesting, Hawk. You are right of course that we shouldn't speculate on others' faith journeys. But many have said openly they wanted to believe in God, and tried to, and couldn't....
I agree we could never expect to have full knowledge of God in this life...but does God need to remain quite so hidden?!
It's all too human to wish for a sign-- I don't think it's wanting God to force one to believe. It's just wanting something definite to hold on to!
Of course one answer is that Jesus himself was a sign, and his life, and his rising again....and I am sure..I suspect....I think.... there are many other signs we are just blind to.
One wishes for clearer vision!
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Clara
The Jewish idea of tzimtzum is interesting in this regard - the idea that God withdraws, so that created stuff can exist. I think that Simone Weil, among Christian mystics, also expounded on this idea, and talked about the absence of God being a presence for her.
But in tzimtzum, the first act of God is to go into exile, which is rather disturbing maybe.
There is a nice symmetry though - that for God to return, I have to abandon myself.
So there is a mutual negation. Crumbs!
[ 17. October 2013, 16:11: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
He who has not God in himself, cannot feel his absence.
Simone Weil.
Posted by christianbuddhist (# 17579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Calleva Atrebatum:
quote:
Originally posted by christianbuddhist:
I think to compare religion to (for instance) visiting a psychic is to confuse different language-games. Truth in the first does not equate to truth in the second. It's like asking whether War and Peace is more truthful than the manual for a jug kettle.
I buy the Language Games notion - and your example - but what I don't buy is that religion and psychic-visiting are different language games: they're both the same, just with different labels and different numbers of adherents. They're both part of the 'metaphysical claims' language game.
That might be correct in some cases, but is it necessarily true of all who participate in religious activity that they feel they are signing up to a set of metaphysical principles? Nowhere in the Creeds does it say "I believe in a metaphysical sense that..."
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
And some people take 'believe' in such a context as 'trust', as in the Greek (pisteuo).
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Calleva Atrebatum:
but what I don't buy is that religion and psychic-visiting are different language games: they're both the same, just with different labels and different numbers of adherents. They're both part of the 'metaphysical claims' language game.
This is part of what I'm on about. Both require a specific act of pure faith. A belief of what cannot be demonstrated beyond an acceptance of an explanation for which there is no demonstrable proof.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think the search for absolute truth has been undermined in the postmodern age.
But what is absolute truth? Christians would say God, but how does one prove this?
The moment one thinks they understand everything is the moment when true knowledge begins to escape them.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
He who has not God in himself, cannot feel his absence.
Simone Weil.
? Does this not fly in the face of most Christian thought? That God is everywhere. IF this is metaphorical, as in the person rejects God, not god rejects the person, is this not a failure in God not the person?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
lilBuddha wrote:
? Does this not fly in the face of most Christian thought? That God is everywhere. IF this is metaphorical, as in the person rejects God, not god rejects the person, is this not a failure in God not the person?
Well, yes, the quote about God's absence was meant as a comment on the previous post, about the Jewish idea of God's withdrawal (tzimtzum).
I think omnipresence has been a tricky idea in Christianity, since if God is everywhere, why do people not experience this? Hence the topic of divine hiddenness.
But Simone Weil took the absence of God as one of her major themes, but I don't know if she was influenced by Judaism. But she developed it in an idiosyncratic and paradoxical way - that the absence of God is the key manner of his self-presentation, as seen in the cry of Jesus on the cross, a cry of dereliction.
I suppose atheists might argue that she is merely rationalizing the actual absence of God, but her thinking and writing are very subtle, and also, difficult. For example, she writes that evil shows the mercy of God! I think she means that it's evil that compels us to seek God. This is certainly an interesting theodicy, rather similar to Buddhist ideas. But it also connects with common ideas about the brokenness and failure of Jesus.
Posted by Tea (# 16619) on
:
EtymologicalEvangelical:
I think I'm right in saying that you believe:
1) Naturalism entails eliminative physicalism/materialism.
2) Eliminative materialists claim their beliefs are true.
3) Eliminative materialism does not allow for the existence of beliefs or the use of the predicate "...is true."
4) Eliminative materialism is therefore false because it is pragmatically self-refuting.
5) Naturalism is therefore false.
I wonder if this argument's second premise misrepresents the eliminative materialist.
In this connection, you might like to read ueber-eliminativist Alex Rosenberg's response to this kind of argument here. The whole exchange is worth reading; look, in particular, at Rosenberg's December 8, 2009 at 1:52 pm comment on the self-refutation argument.
Although I have some sympathy for the points he makes in rebuttal to the self-refutation argument, I think Rosenberg's overall stance is mistaken. I don't think the physicalist need be committed to the belief that all scientific knowledge can be reduced to physics; in other words, I don't accept the first premise of the argument I sketched out and attributed to you - I hope correctly! - above.
Posted by Cara (# 16966) on
:
I have several books by Simone Weil....I guess I should read them properly instead of just dipping in as heretofore. Got the impression she--and her thought--was fascinating, but difficult and austere.
Yes, if God is everywhere, why do people not experience this?
I suppose over the history of humankind there has always been an awareness of the divine everywhere, as manifested in all the beliefs about god or gods all around us held by all peoples...
in fact for me, this powerful human sense of the divine is one of the things that lead me to feel there must be Something. SusanDoris and other atheists explain this, I believe, as being the attempts of "primitive' people to explain natural phenomena they didn't understand. And that what seems to be an instinct to prayer and worship is just a way of placating the gods and buying their favour.....I don't know.
Seems to me there is the famous God-shaped hole in human beings, a yearning for something More and Beyond that can't be explained away in purely evolutionary terms--the impulse to religion may have benefitted the human species evolutionarily, but is that really enough to have made it such a drive and desire all through human history? Could it be rather that people have been responding to somethng? To Something?
But Calleva, how in this life we could ever be sure that we know The Truth of All that is, I can't imagine.
It's so hard to know the truth about anything let alone about things in the supernatural realm!
So there are different solutions--like quetzalcoatl, find it a relief to accept that--postmoderns as we are--we can't ever know. And needn't strive for certainty.
Or like others, join a church that "Knows"--Roman Catholic, or Orthodox-and just rest in the knowledge that the church knows, and we can just accept that as the best possible and truest level of knowledge we can get, for now.
[ 18. October 2013, 07:37: Message edited by: Cara ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
You can also do both - that is, join a church, while at the same time, expressing one's skepticism about knowledge. You will probably find that half the vicars and priests agree with you!
Weil certainly took the absence of God very seriously, and in a way, took atheism seriously. Somewhere, she describes it as a purification of religion.
Her idea of double negation is expressed beautifully by her friend Gustave Thibon:
"God consented through love to cease to be everything, so that we might be something; we must consent through love to cease to be anything, so that God may become everything again".
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I forgot to say that this can be related to the notion of the ego - thus, where ego is, God cannot be. God withdraws, and ego is; but if ego is abandoned, through some means or other, God may return.
But of course ego is a monstrous god in itself, which resents any attempt to shrink it. It will fight and fight to keep its territory. I alone am.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
As always, I do like reading your posts, and have spent quite a bit of time today thinking of, writing - and deleting! - various responses. Thank you.
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
Yes, if God is everywhere, why do people not experience this?
That word 'if' is the tricky one here, isn't it? For me, it's straightforward -not only isn't he anywhere, but just isn't in the first place.
quote:
I suppose over the history of humankind there has always been an awareness of the divine everywhere, as manifested in all the beliefs about god or gods all around us held by all peoples...
Humans evolved to be aware, but the idea of gods was a human idea. The vocablary just grew!
quote:
SusanDoris and other atheists explain this, I believe, as being the attempts of "primitive' people to explain natural phenomena they didn't understand. And that what seems to be an instinct to prayer and worship is just a way of placating the gods and buying their favour.....I don't know.
Whatever the exact origins of god-beliefs, humans continued to do what they evolved to do: to ask questions and find out answers, a successful, survival strategy which drove them to learn and record information. They added this as best they could to the store of knowledge acquired so far and have now reduced the need for a god to have been behind any of it to a minimum (or zero from an atheist's point of view). so that God has now to be described as being 'beyond space and time', 'beyond human understanding, in another dimension' etc. People had to think of a god before they could think of god-shaped space
, quote:
Calleva, how in this life we could ever be sure that we know The Truth of All that is, I can't imagine.
Agree; that will never happen! But because we have evolved to keep looking for things that are true - and can be proved to be true - this will help us to stay ahead of extinction!
Also, we don't know remains a very good answer, and much better than a humanly imagined wrongness. I think too that knowing things are untrue, false, myth, superstition, etc advances our understanding and appreciation of the creative capacities *of humans.
*And I'm going to add 'spiritual aspects' to that. I think the word 'spiritual' is far too often strongly linked with religious belief.
Posted by Calleva Atrebatum (# 14058) on
:
Below my thoughts, Marvin:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Any philosophy that says happiness is irrelevant is a pretty poor one in my book.
I didn't say happiness was irrelevant, just that it isn't the most important thing. What price happiness? I would say that the price of persisting in a delusion is too high a price - and in that case, better not happy and right than happy but wrong. Actually, what I'm really saying is that there *is* a type of happiness in believing what's right, a more lasting, pure and fecund happiness than the kind in believing a lie.
quote:
I envy many animals their uncomplicated, happy lives. Sometimes I think it would be wonderful if the biggest thing I had to worry about on a daily basis was which part of the pigsty to crap in.
I'm not convinced you really believe this: knowing what you know now, as a human, you'd give up: the chance to fall in love, read a novel, watch a film, travel, go on this forum etc. etc. and all the other many things you might derive complex utility from (even though, as a human, you also have to suffer pains) in exchange for being a pig, even if you were the happiest a pig could possibly be?
quote:
That does rather depend on what form All That Is actually takes. If you knew with absolute certainty that there was no God, no justice, no purpose and no meaning to life would that make you happy?
Yes - to a degree at least. I'd be happier knowing that was the case, than I'd be in believing a lie.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
Yes, if God is everywhere, why do people not experience this?
Well I've one answer to this paradox. Faulty premise.
quote:
I suppose over the history of humankind there has always been an awareness of the divine everywhere, as manifested in all the beliefs about god or gods all around us held by all peoples...
And this really isn't my understanding given that the early Christians were called Atheists because they rejected the multitude of Gods that everyone else had. If the idea of Gods is common almost everywhere, the idea of a monotheistic God, singular, is incredibly rare. It was basically the Zororastrians, the Jews, offshoots of the Jews and, now I come to think of it, Akhenaten (who went over like a lead balloon). And one of the fundamental features of monotheism involves an outright rejection of Gods - atheists reject only one god more than monotheists do. (Of course that's an important God, but monotheists reject all the rest of them).
quote:
It's so hard to know the truth about anything let alone about things in the supernatural realm!
That's because every time we know anything about anything it suddenly and mysteriously becomes ... not supernatural. The difference between "The Supernatural Realm" and "The God of the Gaps" is pretty tiny.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
It's so hard to know the truth about anything let alone about things in the supernatural realm!
So there are different solutions--like quetzalcoatl, find it a relief to accept that--postmoderns as we are--we can't ever know. And needn't strive for certainty.
Or like others, join a church that "Knows"--Roman Catholic, or Orthodox-and just rest in the knowledge that the church knows, and we can just accept that as the best possible and truest level of knowledge we can get, for now.
Not so much solutions, perhaps, but strategies for walking the line of unknowing, each with its plus and minus aspects.
We need not strive for certainty, but we do have a thirst to know for sure, which motivates us to continue to search rather than rest on our laurels, and to challenge church 'certainties' so that they continue to blossom and bear fruit.
As God is everywhere, there is no single place or situation where God will be found. This is another manifestation of God which demonstrates the futility of our attempts to confine him, manipulate him, or reduce him to our imaginations.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0