Ship of Fools: A wavering idea of God.

Thread: A wavering idea of God. 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=027373

Posted by Candide (# 15755) on :

My question is how to hold on to a notion of God that is in accordance with the all-loving God of the NT (1 John 4:8, and so forth), when no longer being able to accept the Bible as anything more than the words of men?

This is not meant as a criticism of those who remain Christians, but do not believe the Bible to be divinely inspired. In fact, I am one of you. Sort of.

I lost my belief in the Bible as divinely inspired long ago. Instead I decided that going to the source was the right idea; Jesus as the Word of God, not the Bible. However, for those of us with little faith in the Bible or blessed with any certainty about ever having been visited by the Holy Spirit, then knowing what Jesus actually said, gets to be rather complicated.

There is of course another option available, which is trying to fill in the gaps through logic, rationality and observation. This is pretty much the angle of "natural religion", pursued by quite a few Enlightenment thinkers. By observing the created, one can make decent assumption about the creator, or so it goes.

However, that train of thought can lead to a concept of the divine, that has little to do with the all-loving God of the NT. The God of the observed world can be perceived as someone with a capacity for both cruelty and generosity. While the generosity, the sheer existence of sentient life, argues that the generosity hugely outweighs the cruelty, then the "natural God" still doesn't really match the notion of being all-loving.

I could do with a spot of help here. Is there a way to reconcile the notion of God as a being of perfect love, without simply accepting it as truth because the Bible, or a visit from the Holy Spirit said so?

(Long time lurker, rare poster here. Apologies if the OP is poorly formulated. First try at making one.)

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

The problem with treating the Bible as the Word of God (there was a long running thread about it a couple of months ago) is first of all.... which Bible?

There are many, many translations. Then once you have your translation (and the differences between them are big enough that they can't all be the true Word of God), then you are into the area of proof-texting to support your spritual worldview. This is countered easily by someone else selecting a different passage.

Then of course you get into the nasty stuff. The gnashing and wailing of teeth and gays being sent to eternal fire and damnation for loving another personal of the same sex. All of which can drive you insane if you try to justify it all. Or at least into the far distant wastelands of low protestantism such as to the Westbro lot of fools.

So my solution is to basically leave it alone. The Bible, to me, is a written form of some of the oral teaachings and traditions that grew up when Judaism and Christianity were starting. That the writers were inspired by God to beginthe task is enough for me. I don't pretend that they had perfect memories or were able to seperate their own prejudices from the text.

So basically I take the good bits and put the bad bits down to poor hearing, and failing or selective memory on the part of the author(s).

But I'm a Universalist and probably going to Hell for it according to some. C'est la vie.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

Can we deduce that God is a God of love?

I think we can.

Firstly, we can deduce that God is a rational being. We start with ourselves as rational beings. Our rationality is the means by which we are able to make sense of our environment, right out to the distant reaches of the cosmos. External reality appears to operate according to reason, and therefore it is illogical to assume that reason itself is merely a human projection onto the external world.

This therefore poses the question: from where does reason come, if not from the human mind? The answer must be that it comes from a supreme mind, which is the mind of God. Even Descartes - the ultra-rationalist - deduced the existence of God, and therefore understood rationality to have its source in God.

Now that we have established the rationality of God, we have to ask: can God contradict Himself? Well, the answer is no. And actually this fits well with what Jesus said in the Bible (and you don't need to have a belief in biblical inspiration to appreciate this): "A house divided against itself cannot stand". Nothing divided against itself can stand, because an internal contradiction is a conflict which causes something to collapse in on itself.

God has created us as beings capable of love. Where has this love come from? Like our rationality, we find that love connects us to reality, because it works. It is creative and constructive. We are by nature social beings, and this indicates that our Creator is also a social being. This is evidence, I would suggest, for the idea of community in the Godhead, and this fits with the doctrine of the Trinity.

So we can deduce that God is rational and that God is a social being of love. Why would He contradict Himself by being our Creator and also ultimately our destroyer? (He may destroy in a temporary sense, because of the need to punish those who wilfully commit evil). From a purely rational point of view "God is love" makes a lot of sense.

Evil - the antithesis of love - is essentially destructive. If this were an eternal attribute of God, then He would collapse in on Himself, and cease to be. Destruction can only be a temporary measure within an ultimate framework of creativity. Therefore there can be no evil in God. Thus He must be a God of perfect love.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

Hello Candide, welcome to the Ship as a poster.

I don't think it's a good idea to throw out any source which might help us in our struggle to know God, whether it's the Bible, the Church, reason, tradition, experience, nature, good works, etc.

If you accept Jesus as the Word of God, then perhaps prayer to Christ is the way forward for you at this time, whether on a retreat or in daily discipline, contemplation, etc so that as you open your mind and heart to him, he will help you to see the truth and know God's love.

Posted by Candide (# 15755) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Can we deduce that God is a God of love?

Now that we have established the rationality of God, we have to ask: can God contradict Himself? Well, the answer is no. And actually this fits well with what Jesus said in the Bible (and you don't need to have a belief in biblical inspiration to appreciate this): "A house divided against itself cannot stand". Nothing divided against itself can stand, because an internal contradiction is a conflict which causes something to collapse in on itself.

Thanks for the reply. I'm not entirely sure if I agree with this argument though. There are several points that I believe can be made.

Division can often be healthy. If we're using earthly examples, then stagnation does tend to set into groups with little diversity and conflict. Indeed, internal conflict has often been the guarantee of continued life. (Where would the West be, without the conflict between royalty and revolutionary during the early 1800s?)
If applied to a concept of God, then it seems to indicate a being continually developing. Which seems to fit poorly with a concept of eternal qualities.

Even if conflict does lead to permanent collapse, then there's still a time frame in which this internal opposition can persist. Given the possible immensity of the time frame for a deity, then it might simply be argued that a collapse just hasn't happened yet.

Furthermore, I'm not entirely sure that one can argue that God is rational because men are rational (A=B), and at the same time argue that God is pure love, when humans are not.
There is of course no real reason why God cannot share some traits with us, and not others. But picking -which- traits God shares with us, cannot then be easily deduced.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Candide
Division can often be healthy. If we're using earthly examples, then stagnation does tend to set into groups with little diversity and conflict. Indeed, internal conflict has often been the guarantee of continued life. (Where would the West be, without the conflict between royalty and revolutionary during the early 1800s?)

Such conflict will produce a tension and perhaps some kind of stalemate in which forces cancel each other out. Eventually the conflict is resolved in some way, because the tension becomes unbearable and weakness sets in to one side of the conflict, and that side finally cracks.

quote:
If applied to a concept of God, then it seems to indicate a being continually developing. Which seems to fit poorly with a concept of eternal qualities.

Development through conflict is a Marxist idea (the dialectic), and we have seen how that plays out in society. It leads to collapse.

quote:
Even if conflict does lead to permanent collapse, then there's still a time frame in which this internal opposition can persist. Given the possible immensity of the time frame for a deity, then it might simply be argued that a collapse just hasn't happened yet.

But I am talking about an internal contradiction that pertains to what God essentially is. This speaks to His eternal attributes, and therefore the idea of 'time frame' becomes irrelevant.

quote:
Furthermore, I'm not entirely sure that one can argue that God is rational because men are rational (A=B), and at the same time argue that God is pure love, when humans are not.

There is of course no real reason why God cannot share some traits with us, and not others. But picking -which- traits God shares with us, cannot then be easily deduced.

Either our rationality is essentially the result of natural forces (such as natural selection), and has developed for purely pragmatic and utilitarian reasons - to aid survival - or it reflects and describes objective reality. If the latter, then it cannot be merely an emergent property of our brain development. If reason - and all ideas - are merely 'human', then the idea of 'God' has as much claim to veracity as the ideas of atheism. All ideas are merely tools to aid survival, and no idea has any more validity than any other. But we know that reason does not work like this. If this were the case, we would have no confidence at all in our knowledge of the external world. Therefore reason must have its origin in a truly objective source, which can only be an uncreated - and therefore supreme - mind.

As for love: well, if we assume that love is pure creativity essentially, and evil is its antithesis, then God must be love. If He contains both good (love) and evil, then He contains within Himself a contradiction at the level of His essential nature. That would render God non-existent. That is what contradictions do.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
The problem with treating the Bible as the Word of God (there was a long running thread about it a couple of months ago) is first of all.... which Bible?

There are many, many translations. Then once you have your translation (and the differences between them are big enough that they can't all be the true Word of God),

I've got a couple of problems with this statement. First of all, it seems to suggest that for something to be The Word of God it needs to be inerrant, which is not the case. All sorts of people believe that Scripture is the Word of God w/o believing it is inerrant. Secondly, even among inerrantists, only the really whacko-fringe KJV-only people think it is a translation that is inerrant-- it would be the original manuscripts (which we of course don't have, although we can perhaps come fairly close). Everyone (mostly) understands that a translation is a translation, and every translation falls short in perfectly communicating the intent of the original language. Finally, I would dispute that there is significant enough a difference between the various translations-- or even, arguably, the different canons-- to justify the statement that they "can't all be the true word of God". Honestly, the differences, with a few notable exceptions, are minute and stylistic and part of the overall art of translation. And once you get out of the inerrantist camp the differences become even more insignificant.

That being said, there's some things in your text I can agree with:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
.
Then of course you get into the nasty stuff. The gnashing and wailing of teeth and gays being sent to eternal fire and damnation for loving another personal of the same sex. All of which can drive you insane if you try to justify it all. Or at least into the far distant wastelands of low protestantism such as to the Westbro lot of fools.

Yes. And a lot of bad fruit if you feel a need to make absolutely everything in the Bible "work"-- especially (tho not limited to) an inerrantist framework.

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
So basically I take the good bits and put the bad bits down to poor hearing, and failing or selective memory on the part of the author(s).

As a left-wing evangelical (but not an inerrantist) technically I have a problem with this-- on paper anyway, I believe all of Scripture is inspired & authoritative, tho not inerrant. But in reality, I would say most all of us, even the inerrantists, are far closer to this than we like to admit.

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

So my solution is to basically leave it alone. The Bible, to me, is a written form of some of the oral teaachings and traditions that grew up when Judaism and Christianity were starting. That the writers were inspired by God to begin the task is enough for me. I don't pretend that they had perfect memories or were able to seperate their own prejudices from the text.

Do you "leave it alone"-- or do you believe it is "inspired by God" even though there are problems in the recording/ transmission/ interpretation (more of the infallibility position as opposed to inerrancy)?

The problem with "leaving it alone" and using Jesus alone as your source of authority is twofold:
1. The only things we reliably know about Jesus--what he did or taught-- we know from Scripture.
2. Jesus appears to have had a great reverence and love for Scripture, and treated it as an authoritative source

From a left-wing evangelical pov, I would agree pretty much with your description of Scripture: "inspired by God" but not inerrant; probably prone to some errors of transmission, recording, and/or interpretation. Definitely prone to incidental errors (e.g. historical or scientific errors that are not germane to the theological point being made). But that does not for me translate into "leaving it alone", even with all the "nasty bits" noted above. Instead, it requires a greater engagement with Scripture. Because if it IS the inspired word of God, if it was beloved and used authoritatively by Jesus, it should have a shaping effect on my life & heart. Just not in the wooden inerrant way, but rather in a more dynamic way. Which requires a lot more work.

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

But I'm a Universalist and probably going to Hell for it according to some. C'est la vie.

Yea, even us left-wing evangelicals (and universalist) get consigned there. Asbestos water skis not included.

[ 22. May 2014, 22:01: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Candide

I like your title. I'll tell you what happened to me. I got dissatisfied with intellectual notions of God, or intellectual proofs (the flaky five!), and so went off to do meditation, Zen-style. After years of that, I had an experience of pure divine love, well, in fact, I had a few.

After that, all concepts and descriptions seem kind of thin and watery, but I suppose normally, they have to suffice.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

As a Lutheran I hold that the true Word of God is in Jesus Christ. The Bible is but the manger for the Word.

I also believe the Bible was written by inspired men and women who wrote from faith for faith.

The books of the Bible help us understand how God has operated in history; but it would be foolish to claim the Bible is historical in the western definition of history.

The Bible employs all forms of written communication to get HIStory across. Myth; legend; parable; poetry; allegory; letters; drama, etc.

When I study the Bible I use all the tools I have at my disposal; translating from the original languages; looking at the variances in the text; determining the source(s) for the text; looking at the form of the text and examining what might have been behind the final compilation of the text.

I also trace back how the church has understood the text in the past--and try to see where and why past interpretations have developed.

Using what I have at my disposal I actually find the words of the text become evermore alive. They are dynamic and continue to inspire faith for me.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Secondly, even among inerrantists, only the really whacko-fringe KJV-only people think it is a translation that is inerrant-- it would be the original manuscripts (which we of course don't have, although we can perhaps come fairly close).

I know that is often the line taken, but once you get into discussion about a passage it frequently becomes clear that they consider the NIV to be as close to inerrant as makes no difference.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But that does not for me translate into "leaving it alone", even with all the "nasty bits" noted above. Instead, it requires a greater engagement with Scripture.

But it seems to me that a greater engagement with scripture simple means that you find more passages to back up your own point of view.

We've had the bible in one form or another now for what, 1700 years, and the church is more divided than ever, each denomination and sect using scripture to justify itself.

You merely end up back where you started, with your own view justified, but with a few more carefully culled passages to back it up.

The irony is of course that someone with an opposing view may well be using those self same passages to justify their view.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

hosting/

Despite the fact that the inerrancy debate has recently become a live issue in this host's off-board life, it is a Dead Horse. If y'all can't manage to discuss the OP without discussing inerrancy, that's where this thread is likely to be sent.

/hosting

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Candide. Welcome. Back as I recall in my dotage. My faith in the Bible as divinely inspired has never been greater! As a true postmodern liberal. The latest fad which I'm in to after decades of fundamentalism and a rapid excursion through the charismatic-evangelical. Thought I'd found a home in the neo-orthodox but that's been stretched by the Spirit of the time.

Brian McLaren and Rob Bell mainly (and Greg Boyd and Peter Rollins and Richard Rohr and Steve Chalke and ...) have turned on the light if generous, progressive, inclusive orthodoxy. Or rather it's been turned on in them. It's penetrated them. Conservatives who have seen the light.

That light that has been shining down and through and in Bronze-Iron age meme, scorched earth, bloody mud. And still is.

Here in this site. Now. And it hurts. It conflicts.

We are one multifaceted entity wrestling with itself over this here. Trying to love our disparate conservative/liberal masks.

So again, welcome back.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

My response, before reading other posts, is to ask why hold on to, or reconcile, something which is, in fact, only a human idea?
There is only one belief that needs faith without evidence and that is the belief in God (or of course a variety of gods)

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

I have no faith. Only evidence. First. According to disposition. I'm given faith on top.

Posted by Candide (# 15755) on :

First of all - thanks for the kind words and advice from several posters.

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Development through conflict is a Marxist idea (the dialectic), and we have seen how that plays out in society. It leads to collapse.

The Soviet Union, and several other communist states, have collapsed. To what extent that signals a failure of Marxist thought however, is debatable. Marx himself wrote little of the period of "proletarian dictatorship". What we do know is that the political entity he celebrated while alive, was the Paris Commune of 1871-1872, which was ideologically strongly democratic.
Another possible interpretation might be that the social democratic movements of modern Europe are the heirs of Marx.
The point I'm trying to make is that getting rid of Marx alongside the failed communist experiments, is most certainly throwing the baby out with the bath water. While hardly a perfect philosophy, then it does provide interesting insights into the development of society.

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But I am talking about an internal contradiction that pertains to what God essentially is. This speaks to His eternal attributes, and therefore the idea of 'time frame' becomes irrelevant.

Only by making assumptions about the divine that arrives from the Bible. The eternal quality of God can hardly be deduced from nature. Indeed, nature itself is in just about every way, ultimately limited. To assume that something unlimited created something limited, requires "revealed religion".

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Either our rationality is essentially the result of natural forces (such as natural selection), and has developed for purely pragmatic and utilitarian reasons - to aid survival - or it reflects and describes objective reality. If the latter, then it cannot be merely an emergent property of our brain development. If reason - and all ideas - are merely 'human', then the idea of 'God' has as much claim to veracity as the ideas of atheism. All ideas are merely tools to aid survival, and no idea has any more validity than any other. But we know that reason does not work like this. If this were the case, we would have no confidence at all in our knowledge of the external world. Therefore reason must have its origin in a truly objective source, which can only be an uncreated - and therefore supreme - mind.

As for love: well, if we assume that love is pure creativity essentially, and evil is its antithesis, then God must be love. If He contains both good (love) and evil, then He contains within Himself a contradiction at the level of His essential nature. That would render God non-existent. That is what contradictions do.

I'm often sympathetic to Wittgenstein when it comes to this (as far as I can understand him, which is not far at all).

Logic, reason and language are worldly qualities. They can, and do, say quite a bit about this world, this existence. But because it is a product of this world, then it cannot speak of otherworldly traits.
It is clearly enough true that some ideas have greater validity than others. However, that does not mean that there aren't limits to rationality. Thought processes are distinctly human, but ideas which have superior validity are ideas that conform to observable reality.

I can't really see either that a theoretical divine entity having both benevolent and malevolent qualities, leads to said divine entity disappearing.
If humanity is an example of anything, then it is our ability to perform both creative and destructive actions. This has yet to lead to our cancellation. That a divine being should be more limited than a human being, seems entirely at odds with the normal argument that a creator must be greater than the created.

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris
My response, before reading other posts, is to ask why hold on to, or reconcile, something which is, in fact, only a human idea?
There is only one belief that needs faith without evidence and that is the belief in God (or of course a variety of gods)

Personally, because I still have a belief in the existence of something divine. However, that belief has slipped further away from the Christian ideals. I'm at a place where I feel it's wrong to call myself a Christian anymore, since my image of God has become too different from the normal image of Christianity. To me, that's a loss of a fellowship I'd rather not lose.
On a more general level, I believe that religion should try to minimize the number of "faith-claims". The existence of God is ultimately a matter of faith. You either accept it, or you don't. If you accept it though, then there are new "faith-claims" regarding the nature of God; eternal, a being of pure love, etc. To me, while religion will always need a foundation of faith, then the greater number of "secondary" ideas that must be taken on faith, the more that religion becomes a potential tool for discord.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Very interesting points, Candide. I have also lost a number of 'secondary points' in Christianity, while remaining a theist of sorts. It's quite a peculiar journey, sometimes rather poignant, since one seems to be leaving behind some attractive symbols and rituals, and yet also bracing, since out there is a wild ocean, full of waves and white horses, and all kinds of stuff. As the Buddhists say, or some of them, the ocean remains the ocean, despite all manner of storms and calms. Of course, one classic Buddhist position is that the ocean is you! Gordon Bennett.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris
My response, before reading other posts, is to ask why hold on to, or reconcile, something which is, in fact, only a human idea?

There is only one belief that needs faith without evidence and that is the belief in God (or of course a variety of gods)

And the evidence that the idea of God is only a human idea is....?

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Candide:
Personally, because I still have a belief in the existence of something divine. However, that belief has slipped further away from the Christian ideals. I'm at a place where I feel it's wrong to call myself a Christian anymore, since my image of God has become too different from the normal image of Christianity. To me, that's a loss of a fellowship I'd rather not lose.
On a more general level, I believe that religion should try to minimize the number of "faith-claims". The existence of God is ultimately a matter of faith. You either accept it, or you don't. If you accept it though, then there are new "faith-claims" regarding the nature of God; eternal, a being of pure love, etc. To me, while religion will always need a foundation of faith, then the greater number of "secondary" ideas that must be taken on faith, the more that religion becomes a potential tool for discord.

For me it makes more sense to not limit the number of faith claims, but rather to hold them more lightly and with greater humility.

We all navigate the world with a host of unproven assumptions, from the assumption that this chair will hold me to the assumption that the person getting into the elevator with me is not a crazed elevator assassin. They are based on our limited experience, and sometimes prove to be false (hopefully not the elevator one). But you can't really navigate the world without them, which is why our minds evolved in such a way that we naturally make generalizations from our experiences.

The same thing happens with faith claims. They are unproven assumptions that arise from our various experiences, and even our "wish-dreams" of what we hope is true. To suggest that we can believe (or not believe) in a deity w/o beginning to form a picture of that deity, to begin to form assumptions about his/her character or actions, is just not the way our minds work. We will, it's inevitable.

But we can hold those assumptions lightly. We can acknowledge their frailty. We can abstain from claiming proof where none exists. Even if we (for example) hold up Scripture as a source of authority, we can do so humbly, acknowledging the weaknesses of that approach. We can enter into inter-faith conversations with humility and genuineness rather than adopting a false persona of certainty.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Candide:

Personally, because I still have a belief in the existence of something divine.

Exactly as I did for many years, being unwilling to accept that there wasn’t a force/power.

quote:
However, that belief has slipped further away from the Christian ideals.

Do you think there is a difference between, say, Christian ideals and my, humanist, ideals?

quote:
I'm at a place where I feel it's wrong to call myself a Christian anymore, since my image of God has become too different from the normal image of Christianity. To me, that's a loss of a fellowship I'd rather not lose.

May I ask whether youConsider this fellowship, which I consider and know for myself to be imaginary, to be equal to, or perhaps superior to, the fellowship of people?,

quote:
On a more general level, I believe that religion should try to minimize the number of "faith claims’

Well, I have no argument with that! [Smile]

quote:
The existence of God is ultimately a matter of faith. You either accept it, or you don't. If you accept it though, then there are new "faith-claims" regarding the nature of God; eternal, a being of pure love, etc.

And complexity steps in.

quote:
To me, while religion will always need a foundation of faith, then the greater number of "secondary" ideas that must be taken on faith, the more that religion becomes a potential tool for discord.

Again I agree.
Very interesting post.

[ 23. May 2014, 17:26: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
May I ask whether youConsider this fellowship, which I consider and know for myself to be imaginary, to be equal to, or perhaps superior to, the fellowship of peoples?

You use an interesting turn of phrase here.
I consider and know for myself that fellowship between me and God is not imaginary. Will that convince you?

The comparison between fellowship with God and with people is interesting too. Why should one be 'superior' to another? Is fellowship with a neighbour 'superior' to fellowship with a friend, or with a cousin, etc? Relationships are surely personal and unique.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

What cliffdweller said.

There's a strain in Christian theology that reminds us of the limits of our language and concepts by asserting that anything you affirm about God, you must also deny. I find that rather difficult. But it's a good reminder that our speech about God will always be metaphor.

At bottom, human language and thinking depends on comparisons. We have nothing satisfactory to compare God with. That's why, for example, the Christian concept of the Trinity is so notoriously thorny: there is no other trinity in existence, anywhere. Only analogies. (Despite the fact that people throw the term around when they really mean "triad.")

The Bible compares God to a lot of things, and works with those metaphors: God is a judge, a king, etc. So God's activity in history might get filtered through the dominant metaphor of a particular author or group of authors. Part of the reason Scripture is so useful is that there are so many metaphors used by authors that they contradict each other, throwing into relief the fact that they are all inadequate metaphors. But we have no other way of speaking about God.

So like cliffdweller said, hold those metaphors, concepts, and linguistic expressions about God lightly. You can still use them, and keep what resonates with your lived experience, as long as you recognize that the metaphors aren't God.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
May I ask whether youConsider this fellowship, which I consider and know for myself to be imaginary, to be equal to, or perhaps superior to, the fellowship of peoples?
You use an interesting turn of phrase here.
I consider and know for myself that fellowship between me and God is not imaginary. Will that convince you?

It convinces me that you believe that to be true! [Smile]

However, my point of view is based on the lack of any material evidence which, if provided, would change atheists to believers at a stroke... well, very quickly, anyway.

quote:
The comparison between fellowship with God and with people is interesting too. Why should one be 'superior' to another? Is fellowship with a neighbour 'superior' to fellowship with a friend, or with a cousin, etc? Relationships are surely personal and unique.

Yes, of course, they must be a matter of opinion. I think that I perhaps presume that those who consider they have a relationship with their God think that that is more important than human relationships, but I don't know. I'll have to think some more about that!

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
)[/b]

And the evidence that the idea of God is only a human idea is....? [/QUOTE]
But that's the old 'proving a negative' question, isn't it, so I'll just turn it round and maybe yu can prove the positive claim?!

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

Susan Doris -

Actually you are the one who has been making positive claims on this thread, asserting (but not convincingly arguing) that fellowship with God is imaginary (an idea you claim to 'know'!!) and that the idea of God is only a human idea. That latter idea is a definite and positive claim, so again I ask: where is the evidence for it?

And also... how do you know that the idea of the philosophy of naturalism is not merely a human idea?

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Uh no Susan Doris

You said

God is just a human idea.

You made a positive claim. And, EE has every right to expect you to prove the claim you made. Materialism is not a given. Just because something cannot be empirically verified does not mean it isn't true. Once again, if only that which can be empirically verified could he held as truth, then we couldn't hold anything to be true because the statement that only that which can be empirically verified is cannot be empirically verified.

[ 23. May 2014, 19:21: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]

Posted by Candide (# 15755) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller :
But we can hold those assumptions lightly. We can acknowledge their frailty. We can abstain from claiming proof where none exists. Even if we (for example) hold up Scripture as a source of authority, we can do so humbly, acknowledging the weaknesses of that approach. We can enter into inter-faith conversations with humility and genuineness rather than adopting a false persona of certainty.

Your approach seems in many ways commendable. I'm not entirely sure that it is something the greater part of the population is able to do however. (Myself included).
Acknowledging frailty can inspire a need to find better and more reliable sources. If those cannot be found, then the doubt might become far stronger than the faith, and eventually the faith might perish, or change.
This is of course no real counterargument against your point. Being hard-pressed to reach that level of humility, doesn't mean it's not the right answer.

A more applicable counterargument might be that when faith in the Bible as authoritative is greatly diminished, then faith in ones own rationality becomes the reasonable choice. And when the two don't match, then it's the Bible that takes second place. That train of thought probably goes way too far into Dead Horse territory though.

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
]Do you think there is a difference between, say, Christian ideals and my, humanist, ideals?

Yes. Specifically, the notion of God / Christ, and how it influences and shapes ideals. Other than that, humanism and Christianity normally correlate a great deal.

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
May I ask whether you Consider this fellowship, which I consider and know for myself to be imaginary, to be equal to, or perhaps superior to, the fellowship of people?,

I was actually referring to the fellowship of Christian believers in that post. Those usually being people. [Biased]

My mistake though, I should have been clearer.

Basically, the point I was trying to make was that by being unable to believe in God as represented in the NT, then I feel it would be wrong of me to continue to take part in church life. I have not really lost a belief in the existence of God, but I have lost sufficient faith in the Christian concept of God, that I can't really in good conscience stay in the fold.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Uh no Susan Doris

You said

God is just a human idea.

This is playing with words. She might just as easily have said, "God is not a divine idea" then it's a negative and the onus is on the theists. Smoke and mirrors. Both sides will argue over whether the default assumption is the existence of God or the lack of a divine being. Although a Christian myself, I think in this argument the atheists have the stronger claim. Theism is an existence claim. Existence claims have burden of proof.

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Just because something cannot be empirically verified does not mean it isn't true.

From this logic, belief in fairies and spacemen making crop circles and magic rings that cause tables spread with food to materialize out of thin air are all justifiable beliefs. Of course there are things that are true but haven't been empirically verified. But that doesn't provide us with any kind of a yardstick for determining which are which. How do I distinguish between the God of Jacob and Isaac and the other guy, and the fairies in the bottom of the garden? Neither can be empirically verified. Why should I believe in either?

Believing in the existence (it would be more accurate to say "accepting" the existence) of something that has been empirically verified is a no-brainer. Only fools and Fox News viewers refuse to do that. But things that have not been empirically verified? Which should I believe in? And why? If you can't empirically verify God, you at least should give me some good reasons, even if they fall short of empirical verification, for believing S/He exists.

"You should believe in God because you have no proof he doesn't exist" isn't good enough. I have no proof fairies don't exist, but that is no good reason to believe in them, and you presumably don't believe in them based on that logic either.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by mousethief:
This is playing with words. She might just as easily have said, "God is not a divine idea" then it's a negative and the onus is on the theists. Smoke and mirrors. Both sides will argue over whether the default assumption is the existence of God or the lack of a divine being. Although a Christian myself, I think in this argument the atheists have the stronger claim. Theism is an existence claim. Existence claims have burden of proof.

Agnosticism is the default position. Let's say a person believes in existence because they claim to have had a mystical experience of God. The atheist is free to not accept the testimony of the theist as enough evidence. However, going the next step and arguing with positive certainty that God is a figment of the theists imagination puts the burden of proof back on the atheist.

quote:
originally posted by mousethief:
From this logic, belief in fairies and spacemen making crop circles and magic rings that cause tables spread with food to materialize out of thin air are all justifiable beliefs.

I'm skeptical of but only completely dismiss paranormal claims when they are debunked. Aliens may have visited the earth. Houses might be haunted. I've never met anybody who believed in fairies or claimed to have a magic ring that made food materialize out of thin air.

quote:
originally posted by mousethief:
Of course there are things that are true but haven't been empirically verified.

Which is my point

quote:
originally posted by mousethief:
But things that have not been empirically verified? Which should I believe in? And why? If you can't empirically verify God, you at least should give me some good reasons, even if they fall short of empirical verification, for believing S/He exists.

There are plenty of good reasons to believe God exists. Hence, most people past and present have believed in God. The nature of God and revelation is a different question.

quote:
originally posted by mousethief:
"You should believe in God because you have no proof he doesn't exist" isn't good enough. I have no proof fairies don't exist, but that is no good reason to believe in them, and you presumably don't believe in them based on that logic either.

Not my claim

I'm only claiming that lack of empirical verification for the existence of God is only an argument for agnosticism. One is free to only accept things as true which they can empirically verify. Obviously, such an epistemology has it's own problems. To go the step further is to arrogantly rely on a principle that it is self refuting.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I think many atheists argue that they are agnostic atheists; that is, they don't assert 'there is no God'. But I suppose Susan Doris is asserting that.

Anyway, the agnostic atheist doesn't seem to have a burden of proof, since he or she just lacks a belief in God, but doesn't categorically claim that there isn't one. Well, that seems impossible to me, as equally the categorical claim that there is.

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :

how do we explain creation without God ? He is behind the events that started & continues creation. If He is not then I am in a lot of trouble .

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Candide:
Basically, the point I was trying to make was that by being unable to believe in God as represented in the NT, then I feel it would be wrong of me to continue to take part in church life. I have not really lost a belief in the existence of God, but I have lost sufficient faith in the Christian concept of God, that I can't really in good conscience stay in the fold.

I think this is a wrong belief. The church is not a private club reserved only for people with a certain set of mental verbal beliefs about God. The church is a place of refuge and comfort for as long as you want to be part of it.

You would be surprised at the variety of things your fellow church goers believe, and don't believe.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

These are the kinds of things that it is difficult to get any precision with, and why we hear (possibly annoying) phrases like "mystery of faith".

The bible in my view is a story of a people and their beliefs, and their faith. Part history, part explanation, part guide, part examples both good and bad. To take specific bits and denigrate them, and to take specific bits and elevate them above others are both problematic. This is a details approach and I usually avoid it.

Best is to consider that the general thrust, theme and ideas are correct, and to avoid getting caught up in the details. And to also realize that the bible is a living thing, in the sense that we have to interact and understand it in our own time. I advise not getting hung up on the details, and live with the wavering ideas, see where you get, and what you learn, trying not to firm up your ideas too quickly when they are uncertain. It is sometimes helpful to talk to someone who has the learning, like a priest or minister. Most of them have experience and expertise, and in my experience don't judge nor try to dictate. But ask around if you decide to talk to someone. Reading can help, but it tends to be general versus specific to the person.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Agnosticism is the default position.

Fair enough.

quote:

quote:
originally posted by mousethief:
Of course there are things that are true but haven't been empirically verified.
Which is my point

I know that. But your point is hollow and doesn't have the import you give it.

quote:
There are plenty of good reasons to believe God exists. Hence, most people past and present have believed in God.

Your "hence" does not follow. Just because most people have believed in God doesn't mean they believed in God because of good reasons. Most people throughout history probably believed in God for rather thin reasons -- that's what they were taught growing up and it never occurred to them to question it.

quote:
originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
"You should believe in God because you have no proof he doesn't exist" isn't good enough. I have no proof fairies don't exist, but that is no good reason to believe in them, and you presumably don't believe in them based on that logic either.
Not my claim

I'm only claiming that lack of empirical verification for the existence of God is only an argument for agnosticism.

You're claiming that now. I shall be charitable and give you the benefit of the doubt that this is what you meant to say, rather than a moving of the goalposts.

quote:
One is free to only accept things as true which they can empirically verify. Obviously, such an epistemology has it's own problems. To go the step further is to arrogantly rely on a principle that it is self refuting.

You'll have to unpack this.

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

Candide--

First, you might lose the "old man with a beard in the sky" bit.

Then you might consider the Bible as the testimony of inspired (spirit-filled) humans to their own experience of God's action in the world. That leaves room for the inconsistencies and the change in understanding over time.

The Bible is not the Word, but testimony to the Word.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

Dear Candide,

at the risk of incurring the wrath of the more evangelical shipmates, can I suggest that you read a couple of books by Marcus Borg?

"Reading the Bible again for the first time" and "The Heart of Christianity" are (in my opinion) excellent books for someone like yourself who wants to have faith in God but struggles with the idea of the Bible as being in anyway "divine".

I won't try and quote or summarise Borg here, but his books are very easy to read and may give you some help in your thinking in this matter.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
how do we explain creation without God ? He is behind the events that started & continues creation. If He is not then I am in a lot of trouble .

No, not really. You're left living in a spontaneous universe with a nitrogen cycle of which you are a part. You'll die as I will, and we'll both die as uncertain human beings.

Philosophically these days I have no problems with the "that than which no greater" argument for the existence of Creator, though that doesn't lead me to the Trinitarian God. Only the holy idiocy of Revelation does.

So what is persuading me of the Trinitarian shape of deity? Nothing. Except I guess the experiential dimension, and a good psychologist (or one that thinks his/her word-view assessment is good) would soon dismiss that. The idiocy of the early trinitarian postulators was based on some profound experiential reflections undertaken by some pretty impressive human beings 1900 - 1700 years ago; I do though find that comforting in my own idiocy.

I converted from atheism to theism to trintarianist theology on experiential bases, I'm afraid. Kicking and screaming. Despite dipstick believers. The fact that the biblical narratives were written and canonized by fallible human beings has never troubled me. They point to human lives seized by an incandescent divine love, and that'll do for me because I guess that's what happened to me.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Candide--

First, you might lose the "old man with a beard in the sky" bit.

Yes.

The fact that the old man with a beard picture comes from the Bible — Ancient if Days in Daniel — should not worry you. These apocalyptic bits are meant to be taken seriously, but not necessarily literally.

Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :

This is where I find myself after a lifetime in the (Presbyterian) church, in which I’m still active as a lay preacher.

God is a Mystery, and no attempts to define or describe God, or attribute specific qualities to God (because I refuse to say ‘him’) will satisfy everyone. God is both beyond and within, and the fact that God is widely accepted as the origin of love suggests that God is a positive and benign mystery.

The Hebrew bible, the Old Testament, represents to me the efforts of a relatively primitive people to formulate a concept of God, expressed in the form of of history and myth. Living in times when kings held absolute power of life and death over their people, a monotheistic God was bound to be regarded as the greatest ruler imaginable, imposing laws, awarding punishments and rewards.

The stories of Jesus that were collected in the generations after his death suggest that he had as great an insight into the mystery of god as any person, as well as a powerful, loving and charismatic appeal that stimulated his followers to continue his teaching in the face of difficulties and persecution.

How one might approach the Mystery of God is a discussion for another time – it’s late at night and I’ll go outside and perform my body prayer before I go to bed.

In the search for truth, may we never cease to ask questions

Dag Hammarskjold was there

GG

Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on :

posted by Galloping Granny

quote:
The Hebrew bible, the Old Testament, represents to me the efforts of a relatively primitive people to formulate a concept of God, expressed in the form of history and myth. Living in times when kings held absolute power of life and death over their people, a monotheistic God was bound to be regarded as the greatest ruler imaginable, imposing laws, awarding punishments and rewards.

The evolution of a monotheistic god from the multi-theist gods of Greece and Egypt is an interesting story. How did this small bunch get to write the story and why was it accepted in the civilized world? Is it a case of "the winners write history?

Posted by Candide (# 15755) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I think this is a wrong belief. The church is not a private club reserved only for people with a certain set of mental verbal beliefs about God. The church is a place of refuge and comfort for as long as you want to be part of it.

You would be surprised at the variety of things your fellow church goers believe, and don't believe.

Probably. And I make no judgement about those other people. However, being part of a group, whose premise for being a group is belief in a set of core tenets, means to me that when I no longer share the same belief, then I should not cling to that membership.

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure :

Candide--

First, you might lose the "old man with a beard in the sky" bit.

Then you might consider the Bible as the testimony of inspired (spirit-filled) humans to their own experience of God's action in the world. That leaves room for the inconsistencies and the change in understanding over time.

The Bible is not the Word, but testimony to the Word.

Thanks, but he's already had a shave.

Furthermore, I have considered (and for many years held to the belief) of which you speak. Sadly, I can't really (no longer?) find the method that separates "human error, but divinely inspired" from "human error with no amount of divine inspiration". Which is what made me ask the question if it is possible to find an alternative way to see the all-loving nature of God.

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch :
Dear Candide,

at the risk of incurring the wrath of the more evangelical shipmates, can I suggest that you read a couple of books by Marcus Borg?

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll take a look.

[fixed wavering code]

[ 24. May 2014, 13:06: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Chocoholic (# 4655) on :

Hi Candide,

This response would probably be better in All Saints but I'm hoping it may also sit ok here.

I don't know if you have prayed to see Gods grace and love around you? Contemplative prayer can also help, Ignatian spirituality can be particularly helpful. I'm not able to describe it well but some online resources such as Sacred Space (also on Facebook) or Pray as you go (a daily reflective prayer cast) might be worth looking at.

Speaking to a trusted friend or spiritual director may also help.

Of course, YMMV.

Choccie

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

I think I've got the quotes right, but apologies if not. I've been doing it on a word doc.

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Susan Doris -

Actually you are the one who has been making positive claims on this thread, asserting (but not convincingly arguing) that fellowship with God is imaginary (an idea you claim to 'know'!!) and that the idea of God is only a human idea. That latter idea is a definite and positive claim, so again I ask: where is the evidence for it?

It’s much more the lack of evidence for it … and, yes, I claim it for myself, whilst always reading and learning, just in case that one convincing fact to the contrary comes along one day.

quote:
And also... how do you know that the idea of the philosophy of naturalism is not merely a human idea?

Iff that is what it sounded as if I meant, then apologies! I certainly think it is an entirely human idea.

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Uh no Susan Doris

You said

God is just a human idea.

You made a positive claim. And, EE has every right to expect you to prove the claim you made. Materialism is not a given. Just because something cannot be empirically verified does not mean it isn't true. Once again, if only that which can be empirically verified could he held as truth, then we couldn't hold anything to be true because the statement that only that which can be empirically verified is cannot be empirically verified.

Yes, you’re right of course, but, you know, I can’t think of anything in my life which is true and which cannot be empirically verified, except maybe consciousness; but that is gradually yielding more and more to scientific understanding, I think.

quote:
Originally posted by Candide:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller :
But we can hold those assumptions lightly. We can acknowledge their frailty. We can abstain from claiming proof where none exists. Even if we (for example) hold up Scripture as a source of authority, we can do so humbly, acknowledging the weaknesses of that approach. We can enter into inter-faith conversations with humility and genuineness rather than adopting a false persona of certainty.
Your approach seems in many ways commendable. I'm not entirely sure that it is something the greater part of the population is able to do however. (Myself included).

Agree and the maintenance of many beliefs in the face of knowledge of the universe I can understand – been there long ago, although only slightly! – but no longer think of it as a sort of taboo subject, as any discussion of religion was when I was young. I would love to know what it was like to be an atheist in pre-history!

quote:
Originally posted by Candide:
Basically, the point I was trying to make was that by being unable to believe in God as represented in the NT, then I feel it would be wrong of me to continue to take part in church life. I have not really lost a belief in the existence of God, but I have lost sufficient faith in the Christian concept of God, that I can't really in good conscience stay in the fold.

I know how you feel! Although my belief in force/power was strong, I stayed on in the choir for quite some time because I loved the singing! Eventually, the impulse to stand up and argue with every point in the service was too strong, so I joined another singing ghroup. [Smile]

Did I worry what God might think? Absolutely not, since I was of course sure there was no God and I remained on friendly terms with Vicar and choir members.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Uh no Susan Doris

You said

God is just a human idea.
This is playing with words. She might just as easily have said, "God is not a divine idea" then it's a negative and the onus is on the theists. Smoke and mirrors. Both sides will argue over whether the default assumption is the existence of God or the lack of a divine being. Although a Christian myself, I think in this argument the atheists have the stronger claim. Theism is an existence claim. Existence claims have burden of proof.

At this point, I step back and defer to your very interesting posts, Mousethief!

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Agnosticism is the default position.

I agree of course, but find that so many people take this as a 50/50 position, whereas as far as I am concerned, the agnostic bit is extremely small at the sceptical end!

quote:
There are plenty of good reasons to believe God exists. Hence, most people past and present have believed in God.

How much do you think this was because of lack of the scientific knowledge we have today?

quote:
originally posted by mousethief:
"You should believe in God because you have no proof he doesn't exist" isn't good enough. I have no proof fairies don't exist, but that is no good reason to believe in them, and you presumably don't believe in them based on that logic either.

quote:
Not my claim
I'm only claiming that lack of empirical verification for the existence of God is only an argument for agnosticism. One is free to only accept things as true which they can empirically verify.

I can accept all views and ideas, but for me personally I like to keep the ones empirically verified on one side of a dividing line and those not so verified on the other.

quote:
Obviously, such an epistemology has it's own problems. To go the step further is to arrogantly rely on a principle that it is self refuting.

well, actually, I can’t think of any problems (maybe that's old age!) so will be interested in your reply. (I don’t think it needs a new thread….?) I can only assure you that arrogance isn’t involved! Confidence, yes, andconviction, but always open to new ideas etc.

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think many atheists argue that they are agnostic atheists; that is, they don't assert 'there is no God'. But I suppose Susan Doris is asserting that.

For myself, yes! I’m too old to dither, but I’ll never give up being interested in reading other opinions.

quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
how do we explain creation without God ? He is behind the events that started & continues creation. If He is not then I am in a lot of trouble .

I’d say, ‘The universe started. We don’t know exactly how in every single detail, but what we do know is reliable enough for it to have just happened.’

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
The evolution of a monotheistic god from the multi-theist gods of Greece and Egypt is an interesting story.

If that's what happened at all. It seems more likely that the monotheistic god evolved from the henotheistic gods of the Levant.

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I’d say, ‘The universe started. We don’t know exactly how in every single detail, but what we do know is reliable enough for it to have just happened.’

I'm not sure how that follows. We know a lot about what happened in the first inkydinkyseconds after the BB. That doesn't give us any reason to say, "there was no cause; it just happened."

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by mousethief:
I know that. But your point is hollow and doesn't have the import you give it.

Susan Doris argues that only those things which can be empirically verified should be believed. Some things are true which can't be empirically verified. How is that not important? Epistemology is very important.

Agnosticism is the default position. Atheists and theists are both making truth claims. Theists claim the evidence supports the existence of God. Atheists claim the opposite. Lack of empirical verification is one of the atheists chief argument for the nonexistence of God. Given the verification principle is false, I'm not seeing as how that remains al that strong of an argument.

quote:
originally posted by mousethief:
Your "hence" does not follow. Just because most people have believed in God doesn't mean they believed in God because of good reasons. Most people throughout history probably believed in God for rather thin reasons -- that's what they were taught growing up and it never occurred to them to question it.

You are quite the telepath being able to read billions of minds from across time and distance. Who gets to decide if a reason for believing in God is a valid reason to believe in God or not? Believing things you were taught if you have no reason to question them makes sense to me. Tradition is a good reason to believe.

quote:
originally poste by mousethief:
You're claiming that now. I shall be charitable and give you the benefit of the doubt that this is what you meant to say, rather than a moving of the goalposts.

I didn't claim anything different. Claiming the idea of God must be merely a human idea because it can't be empirically verified is not agnosticism. You agreed that agnosticism not atheism is the default position.

quote:
originally posted by mousethief:
You'll have to unpack this.

The problem positivists have with ethics is well known. Ayer maintained that ethical statements were only about emotion. Others go with some form of utilitarianism. How well they do at establishing a persuasive ethical system that doesn't violate the verification principle is a mater of personal opinion. I don't find their arguments the least bit convincing.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Candide:
Sadly, I can't really (no longer?) find the method that separates "human error, but divinely inspired" from "human error with no amount of divine inspiration". Which is what made me ask the question if it is possible to find an alternative way to see the all-loving nature of God.

If you take a look at this mosaic of the Dove of Peace and zoom in on the center of the dove's head, you'll notice that it's partly composed of photos of military aircraft. I think God took human error and worked it into a greater whole of love and peace in an analogous way. After all, nothing we humans do on our own could really be adequate for revealing Divine perfection.

[ 24. May 2014, 16:47: Message edited by: W Hyatt ]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

If there were no God, the cosmos is eternal. It just meaninglessly mysteriously ineffably happens as ... always. God gives meaning. And eternity. Which is nice.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The problem positivists have with ethics is well known. Ayer maintained that ethical statements were only about emotion. Others go with some form of utilitarianism. How well they do at establishing a persuasive ethical system that doesn't violate the verification principle is a mater of personal opinion. I don't find their arguments the least bit convincing.

You really are rather choosy about what you'll allow to go without verification.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
You are quite the telepath being able to read billions of minds from across time and distance.

Actually, no, I really am quite logical. How many medieval peasants do you think worked out the theology and came to a personal conclusion, which could have gone the other way, that God exists? I think "damned few" is the default assumption here.

Tradition gets you so far, but it is the carrier of the content of belief, not the reason for belief.

Here again you allow tradition to slide in without verification, while demanding verification for things you happen to disagree with. Rather in the realm of special pleading, seems to me.

Posted by Grokesx (# 17221) on :

quote:
External reality appears to operate according to reason, and therefore it is illogical to assume that reason itself is merely a human projection onto the external world.

This therefore poses the question: from where does reason come, if not from the human mind? The answer must be that it comes from a supreme mind, which is the mind of God. Even Descartes - the ultra-rationalist - deduced the existence of God, and therefore understood rationality to have its source in God.

Are you for real? If it is illogical to assume one empirically unverifiable thing about reason, it is equally illogical to assume another. And besides, to say "External reality appears to operate according to reason" is just loading the rhetorical dice. It's no different to saying reason appears to operate according to external reality, or at least tracks it to an extent. Either way the result appears the same to us.

quote:
Either our rationality is essentially the result of natural forces (such as natural selection), and has developed for purely pragmatic and utilitarian reasons - to aid survival - or it reflects and describes objective reality. If the latter, then it cannot be merely an emergent property of our brain development

Yeah it can. If reason did arise within the human species due to natural selection to aid survival it would be pretty strange if it didn't reflect certain parts of objective reality. A strand of reason that concluded tigers were lovable balls of fur longing for a cuddle wouldn't have got much of a foothold.

quote:
If reason - and all ideas - are merely 'human', then the idea of 'God' has as much claim to veracity as the ideas of atheism. All ideas are merely tools to aid survival, and no idea has any more validity than any other.

I don' see a problem with this, other than ideas don't have to be tools to aid survival. They can be neutral in that regard like the colour of our eyes or hair.

quote:
But we know that reason does not work like this. If this were the case, we would have no confidence at all in our knowledge of the external world. Therefore reason must have its origin in a truly objective source, which can only be an uncreated - and therefore supreme - mind.

That's just hilarious. Those with the greatest confidence in their knowledge are usually the most wrong about it. I don't know who it was who said something like, The benefit of good education is that it makes you realise just how much you don't know, but I reckon they were spot on. And of course, there is the well known Dunning Kruger effect about which we have spoken before.

The greatest strides in our understanding of reality have come from jettisoning our confidence in knowledge of the external world. We succeed best when we try to neutralise the biases and dodgy heuristics our reason is bundled up with, test our conclusions and regard them as provisional pending further study.

If reason truly is a gift from God, then he's got a pretty sick sense of humour, cos we all really suck at it.

[ 24. May 2014, 21:35: Message edited by: Grokesx ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EE:
External reality appears to operate according to reason, and therefore it is illogical to assume that reason itself is merely a human projection onto the external world.

It could be that it appears to operate according to reason because reason is the tool with which we apprehend it. To paraphrase Lewis, everything looks blue because we're wearing blue spectacles. We can't see the spectacles (to continue the figure), so we project the blueness we see onto the world. So here: we can't see that reason is something within us and not "out there" -- so we project it "out there" because everything we see "out there" appears to operate according to it.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

To Zappa and all those above the line. [Overused]

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Tradition gets you so far, but it is the carrier of the content of belief, not the reason for belief.

Quotes file.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
External reality appears to operate according to reason, and therefore it is illogical to assume that reason itself is merely a human projection onto the external world.

This therefore poses the question: from where does reason come, if not from the human mind? The answer must be that it comes from a supreme mind, which is the mind of God. Even Descartes - the ultra-rationalist - deduced the existence of God, and therefore understood rationality to have its source in God.
Are you for real? If it is illogical to assume one empirically unverifiable thing about reason, it is equally illogical to assume another. And besides, to say "External reality appears to operate according to reason" is just loading the rhetorical dice. It's no different to saying reason appears to operate according to external reality, or at least tracks it to an extent. Either way the result appears the same to us.

Am I for real?

Hmmm... an interesting and rather unfortunate question for a philosophical naturalist to ask in the context of this discussion!

Perhaps you would like to explain what the question means? I mean, perhaps you would like to define what you mean by 'real' or 'reality'? After all, if our entire perception of 'things' is simply a human projection from the wonders of the ultra-miraculous box of tricks that we carry around in our skulls (the bit of bio-machinery that conveniently enables naturalists to talk in terms of "brain of the gaps"), then, as far as you are concerned, I may not be "for real". I am simply the product of the slightly undercooked black pudding you had for the full English on the morning you wrote the post, or whatever...!

See what I'm getting at (whoever 'I' means)? Or maybe not?

If our entire perception of reality (!) is dependent on a raft of concepts, which all - without exception (as must be the case in naturalism) - have their origin in "brain of the gaps", then all ideas have the same status. The idea of God and the idea of philosophical naturalism both have the same epistemic status: they are neither true nor false, but partially utile. They are useful for those who believe them. That's it.

The only method of verification that is possible within philosophical naturalism is pragmatic: does it work? The idea of God works for some people and apparently not for others. The idea of philosophical naturalism seems to work for some people, and not for others (note that I did not say 'methodological' naturalism, in case you throw that cavil at me). If the only basis for believing an idea is its utility, then clearly all reason becomes subjective. Given that our entire perception of and engagement with reality relies on absolute trust in a rationally comprehensible range of concepts, then it follows that naturalistic epistemology renders such perception and engagement impossible. I am well aware, of course, that there are philosophical naturalists - atheists - who are well able to engage intelligently with most aspects of reality, but that is because they are philosophically inconsistent. They assume that reason is objectively valid, while holding to a philosophy which denies that.

So the naturalistic argument that the idea of God is merely a human invention is self-defeating, because all ideas within that philosophy are a human invention.

Now you may argue, as I think you are, that reason appears to track reality. Yes, the idea of gravity works. You don't need to be an atheist to believe in gravity! The successful functioning of the idea of gravity does not prove atheism or philosophical naturalism. In fact, our confidence in the law of gravity is inconsistent with the philosophy of naturalism, because, as Hume pointed out, we can never be sure that any causal connection is absolute and universal. How can we, when everything is mere perception? But science relies on the belief in the universality and uniformity of cause and effect, otherwise no inferences can be made from any empirical experiment or observation. This belief at least pays lip service to the claim that external reality is actually subject to a truly objective reason.

But please ignore everything I say. I may not be for 'real' (whatever 'real' means)!!

I think I've covered the rest of the points in your little thesis.

You're not still banging on about Dunning-Kruger, are you, pal?

Time to move on from that, mereckons...
[Big Grin]

Posted by Grokesx (# 17221) on :

quote:
Am I for real?...
Hmmm..Perhaps you would like to explain what the question means?

No. It's a common enough turn of phrase.

quote:
If our entire perception of reality(!) is dependent on a raft of concepts, which all - without exception (as must be the case in naturalism) - have their origin in "brain of the gaps", then all ideas have the same status.

Ignoring the snark you seem to think works in lieu of argument, yeah, all ideas have the same status until they are put to work with other ideas and our sensory input.

quote:
The idea of God and the idea of philosophical naturalism both have the same epistemic status: they are neither true nor false, but partially utile. They are useful for those who believe them. That's it

True that they are of the same epistemic status. Ontologically either may be true or false. At this time that's as far as we can take it. Their utility is not necessarily relevant to either

quote:
...their epistemic or ontological status. The only method of verification that is possible within philosophical naturalism is pragmatic: does it work?

Again, yeah true enough and unproblematical, since in many cases, "Does it work?" actually is dependent upon "it" bearing a direct relationship with some aspect of objective reality.

quote:
I am well aware, of course, that there are philosophical naturalists - atheists - who are well able to engage intelligently with most aspects of reality, but that is because they are philosophically inconsistent. They assume that reason is objectively valid, while holding to a philosophy which denies that.

This is just garbage. I don't know for sure, but I suspect they take reason to be a useful, if flawed tool for getting something approximating to truth. And they do this because in most cases where it is truly imporant, this can be verified empirically. For instance, reasoning about aerodynamics can be verified by using the conclusions to build planes that rarely fall out of the sky. In this case and many others, utility and truth are so intertwined they are often thought of as one.

quote:
Yes, the idea of gravity works. You don't need to be an atheist to believe in gravity! The successful functioning of the idea of gravity does not prove atheism or philosophical naturalism.

Who on earth is arguing that? Who would argue that? Some pantomime atheist who lives in your fevered imagination, maybe. Certainly not me. All I am saying is that under naturalism, reason can be comfortably explained. You seem to believe(at least I think you do, on the evidence of these and other arguments you periodically put forward) that human epistemic problems in gaining absolute knowledge are an argument for God. I am saying they are just epistemic problems. There is a continuum of knowledge from none at all to absolute. The fact that under naturalism we can't claim absolute knowledge doesn't mean we can't claim any at all. In fact, it is a strength to admit provisionality, because thinking we know everything there is to know about something leads us to stop thinking about it at all.

quote:
In fact, our confidence in the law of gravity is inconsistent with the philosophy of naturalism, because, as Hume pointed out, we can never be sure that any causal connection is absolute and universal. How can we, when everything is mere perception? But science relies on the belief in the universality and uniformity of cause and effect, otherwise no inferences can be made from any empirical experiment or observation. This belief at least pays lip service to the claim that external reality is actually subject to a truly objective reason.

Bollocks on stilts, and every bit as painful as that sounds. Science will rely on the universality and uniformity of cause and effect for as long as that reliance provides accurate, repeatable results. In the unlikely event of that proving not to be the case, a paradigm shift may well be required. The belief is not lip service to some reified entity conjured up from bad philosophy, but a pragmatic consequence of a feedback loop consisting of observation, reason and prediction.

quote:
Time to move on from that, mereckons...

I will if you will.

Posted by Grokesx (# 17221) on :

Out of edit time, so for:

Their utility is not necessarily relevant to either

quote:
... their epistemic or ontological status. The only method of verification that is..

read:
Their utility is not necessarily relevant to either their epistemic or ontological status.

quote:
The only method of verification that is...

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0