 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is God, strictly speaking, necessary?
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Because even if it is all made up nonsense I am nothing without the hope of Him.
That probably sounds odd to most, but makes perfect sense to me.
My own position is somewhat similar. If you are looking for an explanation of reality, Christianity fails. If you are looking for a vision of how to live well, it is excellent. The decision to be a Christian, in terms of a way of living, is therefore potentially independent of accepting or rejecting the literal truth-claims of the Christian religion.
It is perfectly possible, on this basis, to be a serious and committed Christian who doesn't believe in the real existence of the God of the Bible, but who choses to act almost as if they did so believe, as the excellence of it is separated from the truth of it.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Because even if it is all made up nonsense I am nothing without the hope of Him.
That probably sounds odd to most, but makes perfect sense to me.
My own position is somewhat similar. If you are looking for an explanation of reality, Christianity fails. If you are looking for a vision of how to live well, it is excellent. The decision to be a Christian, in terms of a way of living, is therefore potentially independent of accepting or rejecting the literal truth-claims of the Christian religion.
It is perfectly possible, on this basis, to be a serious and committed Christian who doesn't believe in the real existence of the God of the Bible, but who choses to act almost as if they did so believe, as the excellence of it is separated from the truth of it.
And in so doing find what you had never lost.
All the best, Pyx_e.
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
And thus ends the Parable of the Pearl of Great Price.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
But apparently Dawkins and Hawkins think the Universe can be explained by reason alone.
Do Dawkins and Hawkins really think that? Hmm. Why do we think that that's what they think?
I admit I have only read secondary sources on the topic (via BBC and quality books).
But materialism does seem to be a big part of the program.
According to Hawkins, God is unnecesary.
Faulty logic IMO.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
If there is a God to know and if it is possible to know God then our knowledge of God must be by means of reason, that's what knowledge is.
Does experience count as reason in your paradigm?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
If there is a God to know and if it is possible to know God then our knowledge of God must be by means of reason, that's what knowledge is.
Does experience count as reason in your paradigm?
Reason is a property of thought.
Experience is what happens.
Everybody has experiences. Turning them into knowledge or understanding needs reason. Unreasonable, illogical, thought can make false knowledge out of genuine experiences. And reason can make false knowledge out of false experiences.
Insects have experience, but they don't have reason, so they can have no understanding. People do have reason, so we can understand. I make no comment about cats.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
I see on the screen in front of me that millions of people are facing starvation in the Horn of Africa. Is the existence of drought, strictly speaking, necessary?
This is not to belittle the OP. Perhaps both the necessity of God and the necessity of drought are linked in some way? Perhaps one needs the other.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
I see on the screen in front of me that millions of people are facing starvation in the Horn of Africa. Is the existence of drought, strictly speaking, necessary?
This is not to belittle the OP. Perhaps both the necessity of God and the necessity of drought are linked in some way? Perhaps one needs the other.
In the context of this thread drought is necessary as it's the name given to there not being enough water. We can see it's effects. In the wider context as you know asking if drought is necessary doesn't make sense. Asking if God is necessary is very important as so many people in power make or claim to make decisions based on god belief.
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
I see on the screen in front of me that millions of people are facing starvation in the Horn of Africa. Is the existence of drought, strictly speaking, necessary?
This is not to belittle the OP. Perhaps both the necessity of God and the necessity of drought are linked in some way? Perhaps one needs the other.
I see on the sceen in front of me young women buying Botox injections at £120 a syringe. Necessity?
As the prophet says "You got to serve somebody."
All the best, Pyx_e
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
I see on the screen in front of me that millions of people are facing starvation in the Horn of Africa. Is the existence of drought, strictly speaking, necessary?
Of course drought isn't necessary. It's something that happens when there isn't enough water, which might make it pretty inevitable in some places, but it's not necessary. Existence as we know it wouldn't cease if there was no drought.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
I see on the screen in front of me that millions of people are facing starvation in the Horn of Africa. Is the existence of drought, strictly speaking, necessary?
This is not to belittle the OP. Perhaps both the necessity of God and the necessity of drought are linked in some way? Perhaps one needs the other.
In the context of this thread drought is necessary as it's the name given to there not being enough water. We can see it's effects. In the wider context as you know asking if drought is necessary doesn't make sense. Asking if God is necessary is very important as so many people in power make or claim to make decisions based on god belief.
My poorly worded post meant that perhaps the God, whom suffering humanity needs so much, needs suffering humanity even more. This was partly p[rompted by Jung's assertion the Clement of Rome taught that God rules with a left and a right hand - the right being Christ, the left Satan (See Job, f'rinstance).
But perhaps I should have checked my sources more careful;ly. I have just skimmed all 56 chapters of Clement's letter to the Corinthians, and cannot find the teaching referred to.
Best just ignore me, and I'll go away ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
...
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
The late Archbishop Anthony Bloom was an atheist, growing up as a refugee in a poor and rough suburb of Paris, who felt that life was a bitter struggle to survive, until he had an experience that there was something more to life, that love and compassion mattered. That, to him, was the beginning of faith.
I think there's something more to life as well. However, I find that a narrowly dogmatic view of God doesn't help to explain and articulate that "something". Indeed, I think it's easier to explain the "something more to life" without any reference to God at all, than by being dogmatic about who or what God is.
People do make their own decisions depending on many things: intelligence, life experience, example etc.
As I said, I think the 'God' many people so passionately argue about is often just an intellectual construct to both sides.
That is why, when someone earnestly asks me 'Do you believe in God?' I'm often tempted to reply 'What sort of "God" would you mean?'
I find this 'The Never Ending Discussion'. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
2ndRateMind
Shipmate
# 12231
|
Posted
As a neophyte, it seems to me that God is necessary if the universe is contingent; if the universe is necessary, then God is not.
To unpack, a little. If the universe could be, or could be not, and the principle of simplicity applies, we have to assume it would not be. Unless something made it be. Hence the necessity of God.
But if the universe must be, then there is no need for that something to make it so. In this view, God would be entirely unnecessary.
All the things and events we observe are contingent; but this does not necessarily mean that the whole is contingent. The combination of things in the universe may exhibit an emergent property of necessity - the science is still out on that one.
So, your conclusion will depend on your cosmology. If you think the universe needed a decision to bring it about, unsurprisingly you will think God to be necessary. If you don't, equally unsurprisingly, you won't.
My own feeling is that God is either unnecessary, or that His necessity is beyond our capacity to prove. A proven God would, however benevolent, impact on our freedom of will so drastically that it would be hard to describe Him as 'good'.
2RM.
--------------------
...the sharing of an inward light;
The love of all that's Good and Right
And Kind, and Just, and True, and Man
Was made for this, and this His Plan.
Posts: 97 | From: Dark side of Bristol | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 2ndRateMind:
A proven God would, however benevolent, impact on our freedom of will so drastically that it would be hard to describe Him as 'good'.
Nope, don't get this.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
2ndRateMind
Shipmate
# 12231
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
quote:
Originally posted by 2ndRateMind:
A proven God would, however benevolent, impact on our freedom of will so drastically that it would be hard to describe Him as 'good'.
Nope, don't get this.
That's OK. What I mean is that even a benevolent God, who we knew without shadow of doubt to exist, would be the most ghastly of dictators. He would know our every thought, word and deed, and retain the capacity to reward or punish them. There would be no escape into doubt or disbelief, just the unavoidably horrible knowledge that we could not escape Him, even if we chose to. And that would inevitably limit our choices, severely. Not because we limited them, freely, but because of the possible sanctions awaiting us.
2RM.
[ 16. July 2011, 22:24: Message edited by: 2ndRateMind ]
--------------------
...the sharing of an inward light;
The love of all that's Good and Right
And Kind, and Just, and True, and Man
Was made for this, and this His Plan.
Posts: 97 | From: Dark side of Bristol | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
No supersize psychic policeman of the sort you describe is, or could be, God, in my view.
That aside. Surely it is one thing to know that God exists, and another thing entirely to know what God is like. I'm unfashionable enough to think that the former type of knowledge is not only possible, but possessed by millions of human beings. I think that the second type of knowledge is not possible in this life.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
My poorly worded post meant that perhaps the God, whom suffering humanity needs so much, needs suffering humanity even more. This was partly p[rompted by Jung's assertion the Clement of Rome taught that God rules with a left and a right hand - the right being Christ, the left Satan (See Job, f'rinstance).
But perhaps I should have checked my sources more careful;ly. I have just skimmed all 56 chapters of Clement's letter to the Corinthians, and cannot find the teaching referred to.
Best just ignore me, and I'll go away
Don't go away. 1 Clement isn't very long - despite being 56 chapters (are you sure it's not 65?) - since none of the chapters seem to have more than 20 verses, and many chapters have only three verses or less.
What I'm more curious about is Jung's analysis. It sounds like more of a Manichaean view to me, than something that can be pinned on 1 Clement - although, on the other hand, I think that the idea that "good versus evil" dualism can be entirely pinned on Manichaeism has been overstated.
But yeah - it would be helpful if you could say where Jung said what he said, if you can, thanks.
quote:
Originally posted by 2ndRateMind:
My own feeling is that God is either unnecessary, or that His necessity is beyond our capacity to prove. A proven God would, however benevolent, impact on our freedom of will so drastically that it would be hard to describe Him as 'good'.
That sounds a bit like the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy to me; God says "I refuse to prove that I exist - for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing."
Can anyone prove that free will exists? Looks to me as though Calvin might have had his doubts about that one from time to time, what with the doctrine of predestination and everything.
Trouble is, it seems to me that if you don't believe that free will exists, then any kind of moral teaching becomes rather pointless. Including the idea that you can influence your afterlife through whether you "choose" to believe or not.
And it seems to me that one of the ironies of believing in God, is that to overstate God's sovereignty, implicitly denies the existence of free will.
Craziest of all is the idea that even God does not have free will - but that God has given up his authority by passing laws and making promises that he can't break. This idea is spoofed in the Bible, in the context of Persian royal decrees, Esther 8 and Daniel 6; the reason it holds comedy value is because a king is supposed to be able to do what he wants. And yet, in spite of the fact that the Bible itself seems to argue against the idea, there are still people who think that the Bible - or, rather, their own interpretation of the Bible - is somehow binding upon God.
If God is sovereign over us - but even God himself does not have free will - then what does that say about our free will, and our capacity to make moral choices? If we have free will but God does not, then the idea that God is sovereign over us becomes absurd.
If it's possible to prove the existence of a king or emperor without it negating the existence of our freedom, then why should proving the existence of God be any different?
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Surely it is one thing to know that God exists, and another thing entirely to know what God is like. I'm unfashionable enough to think that the former type of knowledge is not only possible, but possessed by millions of human beings. I think that the second type of knowledge is not possible in this life.
Really? What do you make of the claim that thriblinettes exist?
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Surely it is one thing to know that God exists, and another thing entirely to know what God is like. I'm unfashionable enough to think that the former type of knowledge is not only possible, but possessed by millions of human beings. I think that the second type of knowledge is not possible in this life.
Really? What do you make of the claim that thriblinettes exist?
I don't know what the word "thriblinettes" means, so I can't really say.
Aha, I anticipate you saying, by my own admission I don't know what the word "God" means, so I'm in know better position with the claim that God exists. Well, I think the word "God" means something along the lines of "whatever is the reason there is something rather than nothing", so to say that God exists just is to say that there is a reason for it all. Furthermore, because of God's effects in the world, I think I can say things like "God is good", "God loves creatures" and so on, just so long as I remember that the words "good" and "love" are being ripped out of their normal context of use. But the nature of God, what God is, that I claim is hidden from me.
The odd claim made by Christianity is that this hidden, absolute mystery is something we can participate in by grace.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
I'm cool with all that (and nice to see you posting again, by the way), though I do wonder if it isn't misleading.
The language we use when we say that God exists, sounds like a claim about what is or isn't to be found in the world. Which is the sort of thing the Dawkinsites latch onto and compare with flying spaghetti monsters. It doesn't sound like a claim that the world is intelligible, that there is reason for existence, that human life can make sense and that we can participate in the mystery - which a lot of people who baulk at the existence of a supreme being might find much more attractive.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
I agree there's issues here - that is why we always need to stress that, as the Second Lateran Council put it, "between the Creator and the creature there cannot be a likeness so great that the unlikeness is not greater" - to meet every affirmation with a negation. How to go about this in practice? Well, other than just being explicit about the theology (as Lateran IV was), we signal our unknowing by using symbolic language: analogy and metaphor.
And here, I think, is where there's a communication breakdown in the present God debate. There are plenty of our contemporaries, Dawkins amongst them, who just cannot understand the suggestion that truth can be communicated by forms of discourse that are not literal and univocal. Quite what these people make of poetry, or of the experience of learning from ficiton, I don't know. But theology has a communication problem that is not theological in origin: it is the product of a philistine culture whose highest values are utility and profit.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 2ndRateMind:
What I mean is that even a benevolent God, who we knew without shadow of doubt to exist, would be the most ghastly of dictators. He would know our every thought, word and deed, and retain the capacity to reward or punish them. There would be no escape into doubt or disbelief, just the unavoidably horrible knowledge that we could not escape Him, even if we chose to. And that would inevitably limit our choices, severely. Not because we limited them, freely, but because of the possible sanctions awaiting us.
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
No supersize psychic policeman of the sort you describe is, or could be, God, in my view.
Sorry, don't understand. Surely that's exactly what God has to be? Or are you saying one or both of the following?
- God cannot know our every thought, word and deed.
- God cannot retain the capacity to reward or punish.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
2ndRateMind
Shipmate
# 12231
|
Posted
Hey Marvin.,
No I don't mean either of those two things you suggest.
What I am getting at is that believers, generally, have chosen God, rather than had Him imposed on them. They serve Him because they love Him, and it's their own free choice as to how much and how far they do so.
Unbelievers need not get involved, and are free to serve themselves, or others, as the fit takes them.
Contrast this liberal state of affairs with one that would arise if God were to be proven, beyond all possible doubt. There would be no choice involved at all. One would simply know that the great autocrat in the sky demanded certain things of one, and that all that remained for us to do would be to comply or face the consequences. There would be no space for love, only fear.
2RM
--------------------
...the sharing of an inward light;
The love of all that's Good and Right
And Kind, and Just, and True, and Man
Was made for this, and this His Plan.
Posts: 97 | From: Dark side of Bristol | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 2ndRateMind:
What I am getting at is that believers, generally, have chosen God, rather than had Him imposed on them. They serve Him because they love Him, and it's their own free choice as to how much and how far they do so.
...
Contrast this liberal state of affairs with one that would arise if God were to be proven, beyond all possible doubt. There would be no choice involved at all. One would simply know that the great autocrat in the sky demanded certain things of one, and that all that remained for us to do would be to comply or face the consequences. There would be no space for love, only fear.
The very nature of belief - for me at least - shifts the state of affairs from the former to the latter. I really wish I could choose not to believe, and genuinely do it. But I can't. However hard I try I always know He's there, watching. Demanding. Judging.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
2ndRateMind
Shipmate
# 12231
|
Posted
quote:
I really wish I could choose not to believe, and genuinely do it. But I can't. However hard I try I always know He's there, watching. Demanding. Judging.
But not also loving, understanding, excusing, forgiving?
CS Lewis thought that people get God in their own image. If so, the harder we are on ourselves and others, the harder He is concieved to be on us. I do hope your relationship with God becomes less a matter of accused and judge, and more a matter of the love of friends. For God, too, has much to answer for.
2RM
--------------------
...the sharing of an inward light;
The love of all that's Good and Right
And Kind, and Just, and True, and Man
Was made for this, and this His Plan.
Posts: 97 | From: Dark side of Bristol | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The very nature of belief - for me at least - shifts the state of affairs from the former to the latter. I really wish I could choose not to believe, and genuinely do it. But I can't. However hard I try I always know He's there, watching. Demanding. Judging.
That's not belief. That's paranoia.
Seems to me that in ancient Egypt, peasant farmers working on the banks of the Nile might have occasionally doubted the existence of the Pharaoh. After all, hardly any of them ever saw him.
However, those who did believe that he existed, knew that he was very powerful. He had the power of life and death over you. He could raise you up the social ranks, and he could bring you back down again. When the harvest was good, it was because of the way that the Pharaoh had sensibly managed the economy.
On the other hand, those who doubted the existence of the Pharaoh, probably just thought the Nile does what it does anyway. Sometimes, harvests are good, and sometimes they're not so good.
Perhaps that's where the idea of God came from in the first place. I don't know.
I'd agree that having the existence of the Pharaoh proved to you might be a fearful occasion. However, it doesn't necessarily mean that you lose your freedom. So I don't see how God is any different.
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
But theology has a communication problem that is not theological in origin: it is the product of a philistine culture whose highest values are utility and profit.
Theology is a product of a philistine culture, or its communication problem is a product of a philistine culture?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
There are plenty of our contemporaries, Dawkins amongst them, who just cannot understand the suggestion that truth can be communicated by forms of discourse that are not literal and univocal. Quite what these people make of poetry, or of the experience of learning from ficiton, I don't know.
Neither do I. But as a result of you saying that, I thought I'd Google it - and have thus discovered that Richard Dawkins is a Fellow grade member of the Royal Society of Literature. And he shared his thoughts on the subject of poetry in his 1998 book Unweaving the Rainbow.
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
2ndRateMind
Shipmate
# 12231
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
If it's possible to prove the existence of a king or emperor without it negating the existence of our freedom, then why should proving the existence of God be any different?
Hello Jessie. I think I understand your point, but 1) I would suggest that kings and emperors do limit our freedoms (ask any protestor in the Arab spring) and 2) there is an ontological gap between human kings and emperors and God. No human knows our very thoughts and motivations, and so no human could impact and invade our freedoms so completely. But you are welcome to develop your argument further, and I will try to respond as best I may.
2RM.
--------------------
...the sharing of an inward light;
The love of all that's Good and Right
And Kind, and Just, and True, and Man
Was made for this, and this His Plan.
Posts: 97 | From: Dark side of Bristol | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 2ndRateMind:
I would suggest that kings and emperors do limit our freedoms (ask any protestor in the Arab spring)
Thanks. Kings and emperors do indeed limit our freedom. But then so too do prison walls. As, indeed, does mortality. These things limit freedom - but they don't remove freedom completely.
There's also a distinction to be made between two different kinds of limitation of freedom. One of those limitations is by prevention - and the other is by consequence.
Consequence is what happens as a result of doing something that you shouldn't do. For example, if you put your hand in the fire, it will get burned. But that doesn't stop you from putting your hand in the fire in the first place.
But prevention, by contrast, is something that you simply can't do to start off with. Like growing an extra pair of hands. Or morphing into a bird, or into a snake.
So, something that limits freedom by consequence, doesn't really limit your freedom at all. The only things that really limit your freedom, are prevention.
So, if your freedom is limited because there's a king - or an emperor - or a deity - that will pass judgement on you for doing that thing - then that's a consequence. It's not a prevention.
But what is it that stops us from morphing into birds? Is it that we would face the wrath of God if we did morph into birds? Or is there something or someone other than God that stops us morphing into birds?
Supposing that there is some being that prevents us morphing into birds - and, for the sake of argument, let's call that being "God".
Does God need to know your thoughts and motivations, in order to stop you from sprouting wings and morphing into a bird?
Maybe God does.
But then again - does a prison wall need to know your thoughts and motivations in order to prevent you escaping from the prison?
I grant that such information might be useful to the guards. But the walls still play a part in preventing your escape - and I don't honestly suppose the walls know very much about you at all.
So I think we've shown that an entity or phenomenon that limits your freedom by prevention, doesn't really need to have knowledge of your thoughts and motivations. But what about entities and phenomena that limit your freedom by consequence?
What about the fire? Does the fire need to know what you are thinking, in order to burn your hand? Does the fire need to understand your motives? It would seem not. It would seem that regardless of your thoughts and motives, if you put your hand in the fire, your hand will be burned.
However, that does not remove your freedom to choose whether or not to put your hand in the fire in the first place.
And I'm not really seeing how it's any different with God.
The fire might exist - but then again, it might not. God might exist - but then again, God might not. Our understanding of the consequences of our actions might be quite good - but then again, it might not be.
But to the extent that we can make models of causality, it doesn't seem to make much difference how well or how badly we understand those models. The fire will still burn your hand, even if you don't know that it will.
Now, you could argue that God will still judge you, even if you don't know that he will. But the snag is, it's difficult to follow a process of trial and error in order to figure out how God will and won't judge you for various different actions. That's what makes God different to a fire.
Personally, I believe that there is such a thing as "evidence based ethics". There are various different laws and morals that codify right and wrong, and it varies from culture to culture. But those codes have come about as a result of people observing the consequences of other people's actions.
So if killing people consistently seems to make other people want to take revenge on you, then, sooner or later, you'll figure out that it's probably not a good idea to kill people too often, if you can help it. Assuming that others don't kill you in revenge first, of course.
So, the way in which our freedom is "limited" by consequence, is something that we learn gradually, as time goes by. We don't start off our lives by knowing all the possible consequences of all the possible actions from the outset. We try to make use of other people's knowledge to the extent that we can - but there's some things that we have to learn for ourselves.
And it seems to me that God is only tangentially relevant to that process - if indeed God is relevant at all.
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
2ndRateMind
Shipmate
# 12231
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
No supersize psychic policeman of the sort you describe is, or could be, God, in my view.
Exactly. That is what I am trying to get at. The supersize, supernatural, omnipsychic, uber-policeman escapes from total dictatorship by being unprovable.
2RM
--------------------
...the sharing of an inward light;
The love of all that's Good and Right
And Kind, and Just, and True, and Man
Was made for this, and this His Plan.
Posts: 97 | From: Dark side of Bristol | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
2ndRateMind
Shipmate
# 12231
|
Posted
Yes, Jessie, I think you make a useful distinction between limitation of freedom by prevention and limitation of freedom by consequence. In this world, at any rate.
However, we are not just talking trivia, here. We are talking eternity of damnation. In the certainty of a proven God, is the difference between prevention and consequence as stark as you suggest?
2RM
--------------------
...the sharing of an inward light;
The love of all that's Good and Right
And Kind, and Just, and True, and Man
Was made for this, and this His Plan.
Posts: 97 | From: Dark side of Bristol | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 2ndRateMind:
Yes, Jessie, I think you make a useful distinction between limitation of freedom by prevention and limitation of freedom by consequence. In this world, at any rate.
However, we are not just talking trivia, here. We are talking eternity of damnation. In the certainty of a proven God, is the difference between prevention and consequence as stark as you suggest?
Thanks for asking. I still think that it is.
It's occurred to me that whilst it's fairly standard theology to suppose that God limits our freedom by consequences, there are some significant problems with the idea that God limits our freedom by prevention.
So - it seems that we can't just will ourselves a set of wings, and morph into birds. If we suppose that it's God that stops us from doing that - then it's not unreasonable to suppose that maybe God stops us from doing other things too. Like coming back to life after we die, for example.
I'm sure you can see why that sort of idea would cause significant problems for Christian theology.
If we start from the naive assumption that God's existence is proved because no-one else can come up with a better explanation for the origin of the phenomena we see around us - then, sooner or later, someone's going to ask whether or not that includes the phenomenon of mortality.
If everything but death was caused by God - then why should death be an exception? Since we can't say who or what created death, must we therefore suppose that death doesn't exist at all?
Some might think that's an argument that God doesn't exist - or at least God as conceived of by Christianity does not exist. Others might disagree. But it seems to me that the underlying idea is one of battle of wills; if God is Sovereign, how can we have free will? If we have free will, then how can God be Sovereign? Then again, if we don't have free will - then what's the point in being concerned about what we do or don't believe or practice?
It's not just about God and us, though. It's also about each of us as individuals. How is it possible for more than one person to have free will at any one time? Surely the free will of one person negates the free will of another?
That's why it's important to recognise the limits of freedom - and to be able to distinguish between the things you would prefer not to do because you'd rather avoid adverse consequences, and the things you simply can't do because it's not physically possible.
Mind you, I concede that the line between the two can sometimes be a little bit blurry - especially in the context of sport and healthcare. Do a Google News search for "miracle", and you'll find that the vast majority of reported miracles occur in the context of either sport, or healthcare.
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 2ndRateMind:
quote:
I really wish I could choose not to believe, and genuinely do it. But I can't. However hard I try I always know He's there, watching. Demanding. Judging.
But not also loving, understanding, excusing, forgiving?
Well, one can always hope.
That God, being - well - God, would demand compliance with His wishes and judge humanity based on said compliance is obvious to me. That He would actually love humanity? Less so. I don't understand how anyone so amazingly great and perfect could ever love anyone so not-great and imperfect. It would be like me loving a bacterium.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
It seems a simple, or complex, definition of a 'God' entity will not satisfy you, Jessie P.
Given that all definitions are, by their nature, unsatisfactory, what, then, are you looking for?
Perhaps it's not 'God' but the philosophical discussion of what 'God' may, or may not be and how or how this is not important to the explanation of the universe that is.
The late Bertrand Russell and a former Abbot of Downside once discussed this very matter many moons ago.
It appears they did not reach agreement and the debate continues.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
2ndRateMind
Shipmate
# 12231
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
... That He would actually love humanity? Less so. I don't understand how anyone so amazingly great and perfect could ever love anyone so not-great and imperfect. It would be like me loving a bacterium.
Perhaps that is an ontological leap too far. After all, people love their pets, despite the mess they make. And we are supposedly made in God's image. I suspect that God has more in common with us, than we do with bacteria.
2RM.
--------------------
...the sharing of an inward light;
The love of all that's Good and Right
And Kind, and Just, and True, and Man
Was made for this, and this His Plan.
Posts: 97 | From: Dark side of Bristol | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 2ndRateMind:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
No supersize psychic policeman of the sort you describe is, or could be, God, in my view.
Exactly. That is what I am trying to get at. The supersize, supernatural, omnipsychic, uber-policeman escapes from total dictatorship by being unprovable.
An unprovable dictator doesn't thereby cease to be a dictator. In fact, I'd say the unprovable dictator is a cause of extra anxiety, because you can't be quite sure that you can't get away with nothing.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
2ndRateMind
Shipmate
# 12231
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
An unprovable dictator doesn't thereby cease to be a dictator. In fact, I'd say the unprovable dictator is a cause of extra anxiety, because you can't be quite sure that you can't get away with nothing.
Hmmm. Fortunately this dictator is benign.
Consider the dictats:
'Love Me; Love each other.'
'But I don't think you exist!'
End of conversation.
2RM.
--------------------
...the sharing of an inward light;
The love of all that's Good and Right
And Kind, and Just, and True, and Man
Was made for this, and this His Plan.
Posts: 97 | From: Dark side of Bristol | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 2ndRateMind:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
... That He would actually love humanity? Less so. I don't understand how anyone so amazingly great and perfect could ever love anyone so not-great and imperfect. It would be like me loving a bacterium.
Perhaps that is an ontological leap too far.
No it's not.
If you've ever had kids, you still love them however imperfect they are.
quote:
Originally posted by 2ndRateMind:
I suspect that God has more in common with us, than we do with bacteria.
But God made bacteria too; another child of creation. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by 2ndRateMind:
quote:
I really wish I could choose not to believe, and genuinely do it. But I can't. However hard I try I always know He's there, watching. Demanding. Judging.
But not also loving, understanding, excusing, forgiving?
Well, one can always hope.
That God, being - well - God, would demand compliance with His wishes and judge humanity based on said compliance is obvious to me. That He would actually love humanity? Less so. I don't understand how anyone so amazingly great and perfect could ever love anyone so not-great and imperfect. It would be like me loving a bacterium.
Well no it wouldn't because you, unlike a bacterium, are a personal being, capable of responding to love. But this is where the stress on the 'otherness' of God becomes vital. God is not at the big end of some scale of comparison, a hierarchy of being, with you at the other end. There is simply no basis for comparison between God and you.
I can say that you are better than, say, a cat (sorry cat-lovers) for a variety of reasons. You are more intelligent, more athletic perhaps, and so on. But these comparisons turn on you having properties in common with the cat, which can be compared qualitatively (implicitly they also turn on you both being material objects, rational agents etc). But you have no properties in common with God, so I, and a long tradition claim.
My major worry with alternative views is that they end up in the position which Feuerbach rightly laid into, where God can only be glorified at the expense of humanity. God being great somehow trades on me being less great by comparison. Sed contra to the extent that we are great, and we all are to some extent, that reflects the glory of God as creator.
Oh, and on the 'policeman' point from earlier. Yes, this is a problem for many theists, but so much the worse for them. Talk of God punishing sin, although scriptural and traditional, is metaphorical. God isn't some sort of psychologically volatile bloke who gets upset when people sin - as though sin could harm God - and feels the need to lash out. Again, God just isnt like us. Those who invoke justice to close the gap here seem to me to have a perverse understanding of this virtue, which has more in common with the governor of Texas than with any serious ethics.
[ 21. July 2011, 12:33: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages in this thread: 1 2
|
Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
