Thread: "It is not logical, but it is often true." (Spock in 'Amok Time') 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=023933
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
This has already come up on a couple of other threads, so I thought it would be best to start a separate thread about this, if only to stop further deranging other threads on the Ship. The thing is: I don't give much value to the use of logic as a way of trying to understand God.
What's funny: I'm quite tolerant about other people's ways of doing their faith. So when people make a logical argument about God about the Ship, although I don't agree with their argument, I still concede that they can make it. But when I argue for myself that I don't want to draw conclusions about God that are based on logic, people in some way see my argument as invalid, as something that I'm not allowed to say.
So, in this post I'll try to put forward my arguments of why I've reached such a position. It's become a bit of a longer post because of this, my apologies to the Hosts for that.
Church background
As I've already said a couple of times on the Ship, I come from an Emergent Church/Alt.Worship group that usually leaves a lot of room for Mystery when we try to talk about God. We value the fact that there is Mystery in God, in the Resurrection, in the Afterlife... In fact, in many of the songs we sing, we literally venerate this Mystery.
In our services, we also try to see the connection of God with love, with creativity, with art, with selflessness, with inspiration... Sometimes we feel that in these things we can see something of God, and in all of those things we believe there's something of a 'spark' that can't be fully explained by logic alone.
In fact, "we can't really understand God through logic" is pretty much a given in our church group. The idea that one could try to understand Him in this way, is completely alien to me. (Actually, one thing I like about the Ship is that it showed me that there are people who have this idea.) My position has been reinforced in me by the contacts I had with different faith traditions around the world, where logical reasoning seems to assume a much more modest place than in Western Christianity.
Logic and the Universe
The way I see logic, is that it's intrinsically connected with our Universe. One of the functions of language is that it helps us to understand the Universe around us. Logic is a special, highly structured form of language. (This is why logic can help us to solve a Sudoku puzzle, because it forces us to think in a structured way.)
The thing is: our logic only works (only helps us to understand the Universe) because the Universe is the way it is. If our Universe were different, we'd need a different kind of logic. To try to explain this, allow me to do a thought experiment. Our logic is basically dual-valued: statements are either true or false. We found that this kind of logic helps us a lot to do science, and to create a mathematical framework that helps us to understand our Universe.
In my mind, I can think of a different Universe that can be better understood by a triple-valued logic. In this logic, statements can be true, false or wrynz (I had to make up a word). Mathematically, it's perfectly possible --easy even-- to devise a system of logical operators etc. based on these three values. Of course, a Universe that could be understood by this kind of logic would be very strange to us. The statement 'there is a star at these-and-these coordinates' could be not true, not false, but wrynz. But for beings within this Universe, this would make perfect sense.
This is only a first example: if I can think of a Universe that can be understood by three-valued logic, I can think of much stranger Universes still. Four-valued, six-valued, infinity-valued systems of logic... Logic that doesn't allow for causality (which is based on our notion of time after all)... The possibilities are endless. And if I can think of all these strange Universes, surely an Almighty God who isn't limited to our Universe could create them? (I'm guessing He already did, just for the fun of it ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
) Surely, a God who can do all these things could transcend all these kinds of logic?
The greatness of God
The way I see it, every time I'd endeavour to apply logic to God, I'd be trying to diminish His greatness in some way. How can I think I could really understand God by the logic that we humans made up with our puny little brains?
Imagine some bacteria in a petri dish in a room where some theologicians are having a deep theological debate. The Universe of these bacteria is limited to this petri dish, and if they had a kind of logic, it would probably revolve around different sugar concentrations within this dish. How could they begin to understand anything that's going on in the room around them?
I believe that God stands much higher above me than these theologicians are above these bacteria. Infinitely higher in fact. So how can I think we can begin understand Him through the logic we use to understand our Universe?
Biblical arguments
I have to say that I'm a bit hesitant to bring up biblical arguments, since I don't really come from a tradition that uses Bible texts to 'prove' anything. But to reinforce our ideas about the Mystery of God, we usually come up with texts like Exodus 3:14 or 1 Kings 19:11–12... I'm not much of a Bible expert, there's probably more of them,.
However, to me the most compelling Biblical argument is: when I try to apply logic to God, I'm effectively reducing Him to a symbol (G) in a logical argument. To me, this would be a direct violation of the Second Commandment, which forbids me to make an image of God. Sure, it wouldn't be cast into wood or stone, but what is a logical symbol other than an image?
The value of faith
On some of the threads on the Ship, people have asked: if you can't apply logical reasoning to God, how can you trust anything about Him? In fact, this is one of the things I most like about this position: if I refrain to apply logic to God, I'm much more forced to trust on Faith alone.
All I have is God's promise that He loves us, and that everything will be alright, even after I die. I don't have to reason about this, I don't have to put this into logical arguments. All I have to do is to have faith in this. And in a way, this makes it much more valuable to me.
The ultimate argument ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
In all the years of my life, I've never succeeded in understanding women through logic. So how on earth can I think that I could understand God through logic?
You don't have to agree with me when I don't accept your logical arguments about God. But what's strange to me, is when you say that I can't have this position. I guess that when you make this kind of argument, to me they'll always be wrynz
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
If what you are saying is valid, then perhaps there is a kind of logic in God whereby love involves treating people in a way that we normally associate with the word 'hate' here on earth, and so when we trust in his love, we are trusting in something that could hurt us. After all, if we are not allowed to impute logic to love, then why should love be constrained by moral logic? And therefore, on what basis could we have faith in this love?
Or if we cannot relate to God by logic, then why should we assume that God is greater than us? For all we know he could be of less importance than the most humble snail. In fact, if there is no logic involved, then God and Satan could be one and the same being? Or God could be "good" one day and "evil" the next?
The reason why I questioned your approach on another thread is that all your denials of logic all involve logic at some level. If you want to abandon logic then you can say and think nothing at all.
One other thing... I find it very strange when people refer to "cold logic", as if the fundamental tool of thought is somehow inimical to love, compassion and emotion. Think about it! Two people are lovers and, because of this, they treat each other well. They don't think about it, because it comes naturally, but such behaviour is entirely logical. If their love for each other involved dispensing with logic, then it's quite possible that they would mistreat each other, and no one, who has abandoned logic, could say that that was not loving behaviour! The point is that such normal lovers subconsciously operate on the logical belief that love has a moral content which involves treating the object of love well. As I say, this belief is subconscious and not "thought", but rather "felt". But experiential logic is no less logical than cognitive logic.
[ 06. October 2012, 14:08: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc
Logic is a special, highly structured form of language. (This is why logic can help us to solve a Sudoku puzzle, because it forces us to think in a structured way.)
That is a very strange example, because a Sudoku puzzle does not involve language. You could actually use any nine symbols for this puzzle. So this shows that logic transcends language (in the same way that thought transcends a means of communication), and is not merely a form or function of language.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
Ditto. Thank you EE.
Also, while I am very much aligned with the idea that God is beyond human understanding, being love itself, I don't buy that this makes Him remote from logic.
Fundamentally, though, a God who does not make sense and can't be known also cannot be trusted or loved.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
EtymologicalEvangelical: If what you are saying is valid, then perhaps there is a kind of logic in God whereby love involves treating people in a way that we normally associate with the word 'hate' here on earth, and so when we trust in his love, we are trusting in something that could hurt us. After all, if we are not allowed to impute logic to love, then why should love be constrained by moral logic? And therefore, on what basis could we have faith in this love?
Or if we cannot relate to God by logic, then why should we assume that God is greater than us? For all we know he could be of less importance than the most humble snail. In fact, if there is no logic involved, then God and Satan could be one and the same being? Or God could be "good" one day and "evil" the next?
To these questions I can only give the answer I've given before: my only basis is Faith. I believe in some sense that God is great, that He is love, that He won't hurt me... But what that these words exactly mean when applied to Him, I don't really know. I can assert these statements, but I refrain from drawing logical conclusions from them. In the end, I can only trust.
quote:
EtymologicalEvangelical: The reason why I questioned your approach on another thread is that all your denials of logic all involve logic at some level.
I realize that. (I admit that I've been tempted to say "I don't believe we can understand God through logic because oranges" but I doubt that you'd accept that answer ) In a way, when I use logic in my arguments it's only to show that logic has limits. I'm not saying anything definite about God. Logic is limited to this Universe, God isn't. What conclusions you want to draw from that is up to you.
quote:
EtymologicalEvangelical:
The point is that such normal lovers subconsciously operate on the logical belief that love has a moral content which involves treating the object of love well.
Yes, there is some logic involved in love. But to me, there is more to love than just logic. Love isn't just treating eachother well, there's something more to it.
quote:
EtymologicalEvangelical: That is a very strange example, because a Sudoku puzzle does not involve language.
Of course it does. First, I take the term 'language' so broadly that it includes numbers. Secondly, when you solve a Sudoku puzzle, you think something like "There can't be a 6 in this box, because there's already a 6 in this line. So, in this box there must be either a 3 or a 4..." That's words. That's logical words.
quote:
Freddy: Fundamentally, though, a God who does not make sense and can't be known also cannot be trusted or loved.
I'm not saying that God doesn't make sense at all. I'm just saying that with any logical conclusion we might draw about Him, we have to be very careful.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc
Yes, there is some logic involved in love. But to me, there is more to love than just logic. Love isn't just treating eachother well, there's something more to it.
I agree. But that something extra does not defy logic, in the sense that it is not logical. If it were illogical, then this "something extra" could involve torturing each other, or each lover denying that he / she has ever met the other.
I cannot see how we can have any relationship with God at all if we abandon logic.
If God is so completely beyond our understanding, such that we cannot relate to him through our understanding, then we could just as well say that it is possible that on each even numbered day of the month God decides to exist, on each odd numbered day of the month God decides not to exist and on each globby-glooby-goo numbered day of the month God both exists and doesn't exist simultaneously. And furthermore, God irregularly alternates between being what we understand by "good" and "evil" throughout these days.
Could you seriously trust in a God like that, who operates in a way that is complete nonsense as far as our logic is concerned?
All I can say is that I couldn't!
As for Sudoku puzzles, what you are describing involves more than mere language. Logical operations involve concepts that can be described and communicated by many different forms of language. Therefore they are not simply reducible to language.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
EtymologicalEvangelical: But that something extra does not defy logic, in the sense that it is not logical. If it were illogical, then this "something extra" could involve torturing each other, or each lover denying that he / she has ever met the other.
People who are in love do torture eachother from time to time. Just wait until they get married I'm not even completely joking here. Love is much more complex than mere logic. I personally believe that there's something extra to love, something we can't quite put into words. And to me, that something is connected to God.
quote:
EtymologicalEvangelical: If God is so completely beyond our understanding, such that we cannot relate to him through our understanding, then we could just as well say that it is possible that on each even numbered day of the month God decides to exist, on each odd numbered day of the month God decides not to exist and on each globby-glooby-goo numbered day of the month God both exists and doesn't exist simultaneously.
Yes, I guess He could do that when He wants to.
quote:
EtymologicalEvangelical: And furthermore, God irregularly alternates between being what we understand by "good" and "evil" throughout these days.
No, I do believe that God is always good, because He promised so. I'll permit myself broad statements like "God is good". I'll even go as far as "Because God is good, I have to do good too."
But when you said in the other thread "When we reach the Afterlife, God has three options of what He can do with us: a, b and c. When He does a, He can't do x. And when He does b, can't do y..." This kind of logic goes way too far for me.
quote:
EtymologicalEvangelical: As for Sudoku puzzles, what you are describing involves more than mere language. Logical operations involve concepts that can be described and communicated by many different forms of language. Therefore they are not simply reducible to language.
It seems that we have different definitions of language. Maybe I should have said it before, but I'm using a quite broad definition here: language is any way in which we can communicate, using representations of concepts. These representations can be words, numbers, symbols...
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
We value the fact that there is Mystery in God, in the Resurrection, in the Afterlife... In fact, in many of the songs we sing, we literally venerate this Mystery.
In our services, we also try to see the connection of God with love, with creativity, with art, with selflessness, with inspiration... Sometimes we feel that in these things we can see something of God, and in all of those things we believe there's something of a 'spark' that can't be fully explained by logic alone.
I think you're having problems with straw vulcans. Straw vulcans have a narrow view of what logic is in some ways and an overly grandiose view of it in other ways. In particular, straw vulcans think that you can either have logic or you can have emotion and creativity. They think that somehow they exclude each other.
I see logic as a basic aspect of meaning. It is, however, not the only aspect of meaning. You can do logic alone - that consists solely of manipulating symbols, and it eventually gets you to mathematics. But logic alone won't ever tell you anything about anything other than symbols.
On the other hand, if you abandon logic you can't say anything at all. Without logic you just have nonsense - contradictions or scraps without meaning, like a politician's campaign speeches. You don't even have emotion.
Logic is like having solid ground beneath your feet. It gives you something to push off so you can move, but it doesn't give you anything to push with.
It's true that God is beyond our understanding. But that doesn't mean that logic doesn't apply to what we say about God. It's not that our concepts do and don't apply to God at the same time. Rather our concepts don't apply to God at all, but they're the closest we can get.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Dafyd: I think you're having problems with straw vulcans. Straw vulcans have a narrow view of what logic is in some ways and an overly grandiose view of it in other ways. In particular, straw vulcans think that you can either have logic or you can have emotion and creativity. They think that somehow they exclude each other.
Hey, I'm the one who started quoting Spock! I didn't say that logic and emotion/creativity are mutually exclusive. What I did say is that there's something in emotion/creativity that can't be fully explained by logic. Can you give a full, logical explanation of creativity?
quote:
Dafyd: I see logic as a basic aspect of meaning. It is, however, not the only aspect of meaning. You can do logic alone - that consists solely of manipulating symbols, and it eventually gets you to mathematics. But logic alone won't ever tell you anything about anything other than symbols.
With this, I agree.
quote:
Dafyd: On the other hand, if you abandon logic you can't say anything at all.
Yes, this is why hesitate to say much about God at all, beyond some very broad statements. I prefer to leave some Mystery about Him.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I don't give much value to the use of logic as a way of trying to understand God.
So, in this post I'll try to put forward my arguments of why I've reached such a position. It's become a bit of a longer post because of this, my apologies to the Hosts for that.
And is, therefore, a very interesting and thought-provoking read.
quote:
We value the fact that there is Mystery in God, ...
Why do you think mystery is preferable to clarity, I wonder, with regard to God? Everybody loves a good story, but in the end I prefer to know that the story, for which I am suspending my disbelief, is fiction.
quote:
...in the Resurrection, in the Afterlife... In fact, in many of the songs we sing, we literally venerate this Mystery.
I wonder if you can say why these things are considered worthy of such veneration?
quote:
In fact, "we can't really understand God through logic" is pretty much a given in our church group. The idea that one could try to understand Him in this way, is completely alien to me.
Supposing you had a discussion group and I was there and asked (very politely, I assure you ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
why this is a givn what do you think the answer would be?
quote:
statements are either true or false. We found that this kind of logic helps us a lot to do science, and to create a mathematical framework that helps us to understand our Universe.
And things are, as you said, false or true, but the other option is 'we don't know yet'. What is the benefit of a third choice? Apart from it being a very interesting thought.
quote:
In my mind, I can think of a different Universe that can be better understood by a triple-valued logic. In this logic, statements can be true, false or wrynz (I had to make up a word). Mathematically, it's perfectly possible --easy even-- to devise a system of logical operators etc. based on these three values. Of course, a Universe that could be understood by this kind of logic would be very strange to us. The statement 'there is a star at these-and-these coordinates' could be not true, not false, but wrynz. But for beings within this Universe, this would make perfect sense.
Yes, I too could imagine that world, and the logic of that for me is that our brains have evolved with an infinite capacity for imagining possible and entirely improbable concepts.
quote:
And if I can think of all these strange Universes, ... ... ... ... surely an Almighty God who isn't limited to our Universe could create them? (I'm guessing He already did, just for the fun of it ) Surely, a God who can do all these things could transcend all these kinds of logic?
Hmmmmmm, it's the 'if' at the bginning of this section that's the snag!
quote:
The way I see it, every time I'd endeavour to apply logic to God, I'd be trying to diminish His greatness in some way.
Since the universe started, it has, over the billions of years of its existence, changed and developed in a logical way, and the more the scientists track back to trace the elements, and movements of the galaxies etc and the more they investigate the more logical it seems. Our planet produced life too and has evolved logically to the way things are today. So in my view it has done exactly what it was going to do whether there was a God controlling it or not.
quote:
How can I think I could really understand God by the logic that we humans made up with our puny little brains?
'Puny'? ;Puny'? *shock/horror emoti con* and *biggrin*!! 'Wonderful, evolved' human brains!!
quote:
Imagine some bacteria in a petri dish ...
But we humans can and do imagine the whole universe and then go on to examine and test the knowledge gained about it, including the parts whose light has never, and will never, reach us.
quote:
On some of the threads on the Ship, people have asked: if you can't apply logical reasoning to God, how can you trust anything about Him? In fact, this is one of the things I most like about this position: if I refrain to apply logic to God, I'm much more forced to trust on Faith alone.
One of the best questions I've learnt to ask, since joining message boards is, name one thing in life you have faith in without evidence apart from God'.
quote:
You don't have to agree with me when I don't accept your logical arguments about God. But what's strange to me, is when you say that I can't have this position. I guess that when you make this kind of argument, to me they'll always be wrynz
If we all agreed on whether God, or any other version of god/s,
existed or not, then I would not have had a most interesting andpleasant time reading and responding to your post. Thank you.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
SusanDoris: Why do you think mystery is preferable to clarity, I wonder, with regard to God?
To be honest, I like a Mysterious God. Like art, music, love or a good joke, I think He would be much less fun if you could explain Him through logic.
quote:
SusanDoris: I wonder if you can say why these things are considered worthy of such veneration?
I guess it's simply because they inspire me. A big part of my faith is much more based on inspiration than on logical arguments.
quote:
SusanDoris: Supposing you had a discussion group and I was there and asked (very politely, I assure you
Don't worry, I don't have to be overly polite with my church group, they already know me (And it's more than a discussion group.) But I suspect the answer they would give me would be pretty much in line with my opening post on this thread. I'll definitely ask them the next time I see them.
quote:
SusanDoris: And things are, as you said, false or true, but the other option is 'we don't know yet'. What is the benefit of a third choice? Apart from it being a very interesting thought.
I guess you understood that my wyrnz means something else than 'we don't know yet'. I don't see much benefit in having this as a third choice in our Universe, but I can imagine that there could be another Universe where it could be very beneficial. If I can imagine that such a Universe exists, why would God be limited to a true/false logic?
quote:
SusanDoris: Since the universe started, it has, over the billions of years of its existence, changed and developed in a logical way, and the more the scientists track back to trace the elements, and movements of the galaxies etc and the more they investigate the more logical it seems.
Yet, scientists have as yet failed to give a full, logical explanation of love for example.
quote:
SusanDoris: 'Puny'? ;Puny'? *shock/horror emoti con* and *biggrin*!! 'Wonderful, evolved' human brains!!
Point taken. Yes, our brains are definitely wonderful. But to think "We have invented logic with our brains, therefore we can explain God" would be too much for me.
quote:
SusanDoris: But we humans can and do imagine the whole universe and then go on to examine and test the knowledge gained about it, including the parts whose light has never, and will never, reach us.
But if we assume that there's a God who transcends our Universe, could we test and imagine Him? (I also don't think the last part of your statement is true.)
quote:
SusanDoris: One of the best questions I've learnt to ask, since joining message boards is, name one thing in life you have faith in without evidence apart from God'.
A very good question! There are people I have faith in without evidence.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc
quote:
EtymologicalEvangelical: If God is so completely beyond our understanding, such that we cannot relate to him through our understanding, then we could just as well say that it is possible that on each even numbered day of the month God decides to exist, on each odd numbered day of the month God decides not to exist and on each globby-glooby-goo numbered day of the month God both exists and doesn't exist simultaneously.
Yes, I guess He could do that when He wants to.
Stop taking me for a fool, will you!
You seriously think that God can make himself not exist, and also exist and not exist at the same time? With views like that, no wonder people turn to atheism.
For the sake of my own sanity, I think I will pass on the rest of this thread, because it is clear to me that your view of God is completely meaningless. Really God is just an empty idea which you can fill with anything you like, no matter how bizarre. On the other thread you called my views "silly" because I tried to understand an aspect of God's ways, but yet you write that God can exist and not exist at the same time. Are you just cynically messing around with people's minds, or what?
Given that you have rejected logic, then there is no basis by which I can actually discuss anything with you, because you will just say: "Well God can do that, no matter how absurd it is."
I don't know what you expect anybody to contribute to this discussion. Any argument that anyone puts forward, you will just reject on the basis that arguments, being logical, are not valid.
In fact, why did you even bother to present this thread. Was it just to air your own irrationality?
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Dafyd: I think you're having problems with straw vulcans.
Hey, I'm the one who started quoting Spock!
Spock does have straw vulcan moments; the writers often have him say something is illogical when it is anything but.
quote:
I didn't say that logic and emotion/creativity are mutually exclusive. What I did say is that there's something in emotion/creativity that can't be fully explained by logic. Can you give a full, logical explanation of creativity?
I don't think that's what logic does. Logic doesn't explain anything.
I don't think you can give a full logical explanation of anything at all in that sense, except mathematics and formal logic. Everything that exists could have been otherwise. And if something could have been otherwise then logic cannot explain why it is the way it is and not any of the other ways that it could have been. (*)
quote:
quote:
Dafyd: On the other hand, if you abandon logic you can't say anything at all.
Yes, this is why hesitate to say much about God at all, beyond some very broad statements. I prefer to leave some Mystery about Him.
I think the point is that no matter how much we say about God we can't diminish the mystery about him. All our words about God are no more than pointers to the things in creation through which God is revealed. Rowan Williams says somewhere that all language about God is either mystery or irony. Mystery is a way of talking about God in which language is used to suggest that there is something beyond the words - for example, There is in God (some say)/ a deep but dazzling darkness (Vaughan). But that doesn't mean we may therefore directly contradict ourselves.
(*) Actually, there's one thing that cannot have been otherwise and that is God. So God is the one thing that there is a logical explanation for, and therefore we cannot understand it.
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
Logic isn't all it's cracked up to be. We've known that at least since Gödel.
Specifically, we know that for any formal system of logic, there will always be statements which are true but not provable within that system.
Logic is weird. So is physics. Taking a 'commonsense logic' approach to either gives wrong answers.
Why would God be simpler?
Posted by LucyP (# 10476) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
But when I argue for myself that I don't want to draw conclusions about God that are based on logic, people in some way see my argument as invalid, as something that I'm not allowed to say.
Logic is a subset of the cognitive processes that go on in our brain. To simplify, it tends to be the predominant mode of the left hemisphere's way of dealing with the world.
In scientific studies, people with loss of communication between the two hemispheres of the brain can (under experimental circumstances – such as showing pictures to each visual field, with one picture explaining the other) be very logical, but at the same time they are taking into account only the details that the left brain understands (from the picture that it is looking at). The left brain devises watertight logical explanations to fit the facts it thinks it has to explain, even though the right brain, which is less verbal, sees that there is much more to the situation. Logic is only a part of understanding.
Psychiatrist Iain Mcgilchrist has written a fascinating book called The Master and His Emissary. The title is taken from a story of Nietzsche's. The Master stands for the right hemisphere, the Emissary stands for the left hemisphere. The Emissary is the Master's most trusted servant, who is second in running the kingdom, but who eventually gets the idea that he is wiser and more important than the master. Mcgilchrist argues that in Western culture, “left hemisphere” ways of dealing with the world (such as verbal logic, analysis, and certainty) have become prized, at the expense of all the other modes of understanding (such as metaphor, overall context, and relationship).
He says (my bold)
quote:
Believing is not to be reduced to thinking that such-and-such might be the case. It is not a weaker form of thinking, laced with doubt. Sometimes we speak like this: “I believe the train leaves at 6.13” where 'I believe that' simply means 'I think (but am not certain) that'. Since the left hemisphere is concerned with what is certain, with knowledge of the facts, its version of belief is that it is just absence of certainty. If the facts were certain, according to its view, I should be able to say “I know that” instead. This view of belief comes from the left hemisphere's disposition towards the world; interest in what is useful, therefore fixed and certain. So belief is just a feeble form of knowing, as far as it is concerned.
But belief in terms of the right hemisphere is different, because its disposition towards the world is different. The right hemisphere does not 'know' anything in the sense of certain knowledge. For it, belief is a matter of care: it describes a relationship, where there is a calling and an answering, the root concept of 'responsibility'. Thus, if I say that 'I believe in you', it does not mean that I think that such-and-such things are the case about you, but can't be certain that I am right. It means that I stand in a certain sort of relation of care towards you, that entails me in certain kinds of way of behaving (acting and being) towards you, and entails on you the responsibility of certain ways of acting and being as well.
It is an acting 'as if' certain things were true about you that in the nature of things cannot be certain.
It has the characteristic right hemisphere qualities of being a between-ness: a … respons-ible relationship in which each party is altered by the other and by the relationship between the two, whereas the relationship of the believer to the believed-in in the left hemisphere sense is inert, unidirectional, and centres on control rather than care.
(Mcgilchrist, p 170)
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
EtymologicalEvangelical:
You seriously think that God can make himself not exist, and also exist and not exist at the same time?
Like I already argued in another thread, I'm already hesitant to use the verb 'exist' when it has God as its subject. I don't even very know very well what it means in this case.
quote:
EtymologicalEvangelical: Really God is just an empty idea which you can fill with anything you like, no matter how bizarre.
No, I cannot fill God with anything. But I do believe that He can be much more than all the logical frames "God only has three options..." we can think of.
quote:
EtymologicalEvangelical: Given that you have rejected logic, then there is no basis by which I can actually discuss anything with you
There is a basis on which I can think about God: faith. I find that to me this has much more value than logic. But I feel that I always should refrain myself when talking about Him, because I'll never fully understand Him. And definitely not through logic.
quote:
Dafyd: Spock does have straw vulcan moments; the writers often have him say something is illogical when it is anything but.
This is very true.
quote:
Dafyd: I don't think that's what logic does. Logic doesn't explain anything.
I don't think you can give a full logical explanation of anything at all in that sense, except mathematics and formal logic. Everything that exists could have been otherwise. And if something could have been otherwise then logic cannot explain why it is the way it is and not any of the other ways that it could have been. (*)
(*) Actually, there's one thing that cannot have been otherwise and that is God. So God is the one thing that there is a logical explanation for, and therefore we cannot understand it.
I'm trying to follow you here, but I'm having difficulties. I agree that logic doesn't explain anything, but like I said, it helps us to think in systematic ways, which helps to understand a certain class of things better.
When I say that logic doesn't fully explain creativity for example, I don't mean that creativity could have been otherwise. I mean that when you want to be creative, there is logic involved, but logic only gets you so far. There is something more, a 'spark' that we can't understand through logic. To me, this spark is connected with God.
quote:
Dafyd: I think the point is that no matter how much we say about God we can't diminish the mystery about him. All our words about God are no more than pointers to the things in creation through which God is revealed. Rowan Williams says somewhere that all language about God is either mystery or irony. Mystery is a way of talking about God in which language is used to suggest that there is something beyond the words - for example, There is in God (some say)/ a deep but dazzling darkness (Vaughan).
With this I agree. Beautiful.
quote:
Dafyd: But that doesn't mean we may therefore directly contradict ourselves.
I admit that I'm being a bit provocative when I'm saying these contradictory things about Him. But to me, what you said in the paragraph above also doesn't mean that we can put Him in our logical box: "If God does a, He cannot do b, so He must do c..." Our language and our logic will always be limited when we talk about God.
@LucyP: I have to be honest, I'm a bit sceptical about this left hemisphere/right hemisphere stuff.
Posted by LucyP (# 10476) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
@LucyP: I have to be honest, I'm a bit sceptical about this left hemisphere/right hemisphere stuff. [/QB]
Unfortunately it has been over-simplified and popularised by certain types of authors, (eg those who want to throw out all logic and replace it with goodness-knows-what, or who claim that the left brain is "male" and the right brain is "female") but there is "real science" behind it.
Mcgilchrist's book summarises a vast body of research done at reputable institutions, such as research which looks at the deficits experienced by people who have had brain injuries or strokes.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
LucyP: Unfortunately it has been over-simplified and popularised by certain types of authors [...] but there is "real science" behind it.
Exactly. I might go along some way in this left-brain/right-brain stuff, but with many caveats, and lots of grains of salt close at hand.
I've been thinking if there is a moment registered in the Bible where God was doing something that is absurd to us, that goes against our logic, where He was both a and not a at the same time.
The clearest moment I could think of is Eli, Eli la'ma sa-bach'tha-ni. At this moment, (1) Jesus was abandoned by God, but (2) He was still part of the unseparable Trinity. You'll get into a heresy as soon as you deny any of these two statements: either you'll have to admit that there were temporarily two Gods, or it was just Jesus-the-Man who suffered on the Cross. Both of these 'solutions' are heretical.
We can only understand this if we accept that there was a Mystery at play here: something happened here that's not possible to us, but that's possible to God.
@EtymologicalEvangelical: I find it interesting that in this post you seem to claim that there's something about tasting chocolate that science can't fully explain. There's something more about it. Do you think that we can understand this 'something more' through logic?
Posted by LucyP (# 10476) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I don't give much value to the use of logic as a way of trying to understand God.
Is it fair to say that we don't rely on "logic" alone whenever we're getting to know another person? We use some logic but getting to know someone usually goes well beyond logic.
I wonder, is the relationship of "logic" to "understanding" here the same as the difference between the Dutch words "weten" and "kennen"?
In German the respective words are "wissen" and "kennen", in French "savoir" and "connaitre".
All of these words are translated into English as "know", but (in my understanding) there is an important distinction in the other languages. "Weten/wissen/savoir" is more about knowing facts, "kennen/connaitre" refers to a deeper knowledge, such as a firsthand acquaintance with a person, or deep knowledge of a subject, or a place one has lived in.
The deeper knowledge includes the factual knowledge, yet goes beyond it, and may be far more complex than individual facts. Eg - if I have lived in a particular industrial town, I may agree with a guidebook which states "ugly town, no sights worth seeing, not worth a tourist's visit" (the "facts")- and yet my deep knowledge of the place may also include places of relative beauty, such as the local park on a spring day or the sun setting over the hills on the edge of the town, or the warmth of the people, or the kindness of struggling people to others less well off than themselves.
Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on
:
I think there's a difference between "trying to understand God through logic" and being able to say things about God because of logic.
If I believe the statement "God Loves Everyone" is true then logic allows me to say:
- "everyone" is a word meaning "all persons"
- I am a person
- therefore God loves me.
If logic is abandoned completely then I'm forced to search the Bible for a verse saying "God Loves LatePaul".
I think we can acknowledge that there are limits to logic without throwing it out altogether.
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
An interesting thread. The question for me at the heart of such discussions is where it ends up going. My suspicion is that too often the denial of logic is an excuse to ignore aspects of God that you are unhappy with; if you don't like the promise in the bible that:
quote:
But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulphur. This is the second death.
Rev 21:8 then it's more comfortable to say: 'But that's not what I want to believe so I'll say "It's all a mystery".'
Ultimately ANY statement about God requires a commitment to a belief that statements about God can be true or false. 'God is love / loving / something about love' are all logical statements. As is 'God will come to judge the world' etc etc.
IMNSHO the starting point for Christianity is the claim that God has revealed Himself by His actions in the world as interpreted in the bible. Most clearly He has revealed Himself in Jesus, to the extent it is true to say 'The Word became flesh'. And our response to that should be to 'repent'.
Having said all that, it is important to recognise that there ARE areas of mystery - that God has not made clear to us. It is valid to recognise we don't know everything. But where God HAS made it clear, it is sheer rebellion and idolatry to pretend otherwise.
To take the example of the Resurrection; Paul's emphatic jumping up and down about it at length in 1 Cor 15 surely gives us no space to suggest that actually we won't be resurrected. But once we accept the truth of this, why should we stop there? We've agreed that there is a truth to be discovered. What other truths can we therefore should we be confident of? And why should logic be an invalid tool to determine those things? Is it actually that we don't like a particular conclusion, so we want to use a denial of the validity of logic as a 'get out of jail free' card to avoid it?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LucyP:
Is it fair to say that we don't rely on "logic" alone whenever we're getting to know another person?
In fact most of our impressions of other people rely on intuition.
I am known as a very illogical person. I'm creative, visual and intuitive. Interestingly, logical, straight line thinkers are often attracted to me.
I think they wonder how I get by in life with such an inefficient brain.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
LucyP: Is it fair to say that we don't rely on "logic" alone whenever we're getting to know another person? We use some logic but getting to know someone usually goes well beyond logic.
Exactly. And I personally believe that this 'something that goes beyond logic' is connected with God. That's why I find it strange when someone tries to understand God through logic.
quote:
LucyP: I wonder, is the relationship of "logic" to "understanding" here the same as the difference between the Dutch words "weten" and "kennen"?
To some degree perhaps. But I'm not sure if you can take the analogy to the and. Both weten and kennen have multiple meanings, and mapping them to 'logic' and 'understanding' might become a bit artificial in the end.
But I agree with the gist of your post: logic may help us to know a lot about a person. But to really know someone on a personal level, something more than logic is needed.
quote:
Late Paul: If I believe the statement "God Loves Everyone" is true then logic allows me to say:
- "everyone" is a word meaning "all persons"
- I am a person
- therefore God loves me.
If logic is abandoned completely then I'm forced
I guess this is more applying logic to the concept of 'all persons' than to God.
quote:
Late Paul: I think we can acknowledge that there are limits to logic without throwing it out altogether.
Maybe, but whenever I find myself tempted to apply logic to God, I have warning lights flashing: Careful! Who are you to think that you can understand Him?
quote:
Ender's Shadow: My suspicion is that too often the denial of logic is an excuse to ignore aspects of God that you are unhappy with
I dont need to deny logic to do that. I'm a lib'rul, so I can just say: "the Bible didn't really mean that"
quote:
Ender's Shadow: To take the example of the Resurrection; Paul's emphatic jumping up and down about it at length in 1 Cor 15 surely gives us no space to suggest that actually we won't be resurrected. But once we accept the truth of this, why should we stop there? We've agreed that there is a truth to be discovered. What other truths can we therefore should we be confident of? And why should logic be an invalid tool to determine those things?
I think logic can be useful in this case. Yes, take Paul's truth and let's see what we can derive logically from that. But in doing this, I'd always keep in mind that I'm treading dangerous grounds here, and that my logical conclusion doesn't have to be the ultimate truth.
For example, whenever I'm discussion the Ressurection (also on the Ship), I use words like: "A view of the Ressurrection I like is ..." "One idea about the Ressurrection that appeals to me is..." I'll be hard-pressed to commit to any logical conclusion about the Ressurrection. The only thing I'm ready to commit to, is God's love.
Posted by Flossymole (# 17339) on
:
Originally posted by LeRoc
quote:
The clearest moment I could think of is Eli, Eli la'ma sa-bach'tha-ni. At this moment, (1) Jesus was abandoned by God, but (2) He was still part of the unseparable Trinity. You'll get into a heresy as soon as you deny any of these two statements: either you'll have to admit that there were temporarily two Gods, or it was just Jesus-the-Man who suffered on the Cross. Both of these 'solutions' are heretical.
'Eli, Eli la'ma sa-bach'tha-ni' is a quotation, is it not? The opening words of Psalm 22. The bystanders might not have heard the rest of it, but it ends in triumph - 'They shall come, and shall declare his righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that he hath done this'.
The clearest moment I could think of is Eli, Eli la'ma sa-bach'tha-ni. At this moment, (1) Jesus was abandoned by God, but (2) He was still part of the unseparable Trinity. You'll get into a heresy as soon as you deny any of these two statements: either you'll have to admit that there were temporarily two Gods, or it was just Jesus-the-Man who suffered on the Cross. Both of these 'solutions' are heretical.
Posted by Flossymole (# 17339) on
:
Originally posted by LeRoc
quote:
The clearest moment I could think of is Eli, Eli la'ma sa-bach'tha-ni. At this moment, (1) Jesus was abandoned by God, but (2) He was still part of the unseparable Trinity. You'll get into a heresy as soon as you deny any of these two statements: either you'll have to admit that there were temporarily two Gods, or it was just Jesus-the-Man who suffered on the Cross. Both of these 'solutions' are heretical.
'Eli, Eli la'ma sa-bach'tha-ni' is a quotation, is it not? The opening words of Psalm 22. The bystanders might not have heard the rest of it, but it ends in triumph - 'They shall come, and shall declare his righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that he hath done this'.
Posted by Flossymole (# 17339) on
:
Sorry about the repetition. New to this.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Flossymole: 'Eli, Eli la'ma sa-bach'tha-ni' is a quotation, is it not? The opening words of Psalm 22.
Yes, of course.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I'm trying to follow you here, but I'm having difficulties. I agree that logic doesn't explain anything, but like I said, it helps us to think in systematic ways, which helps to understand a certain class of things better.
I'm not sure that logic is the same as system.
Let's put it like this: I think for people who haven't ever done mathematics or logic 'logic' means a process by which you deduce things from other things, and something is illogical if you can't make the deduction. Whereas I think that's a bit misleading: that kind of rigour only applies to mathematics. Logic in other areas means realising that you've just made a mistake of some kind and have to work out how to solve it. Saying that there's no such thing as logic in an area means that there's no such thing as a mistake, and there's no occasion for creativity.
quote:
I mean that when you want to be creative, there is logic involved, but logic only gets you so far. There is something more, a 'spark' that we can't understand through logic.
There are two things that can be meant by 'logic only gets you so far' - 'logic gives out and no longer applies' and 'you need something in addition to logic'. The second is I think true, while the first is I think false.
quote:
I admit that I'm being a bit provocative when I'm saying these contradictory things about Him. But to me, what you said in the paragraph above also doesn't mean that we can put Him in our logical box: "If God does a, He cannot do b, so He must do c..." Our language and our logic will always be limited when we talk about God.
I'm not sure that is logic. Logic is saying that if we say a about God, then we either retract it or hold onto it, but we don't pretend we didn't say it. Logic is being accountable to each other and ourselves in our speaking.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Dafyd: Logic in other areas means realising that you've just made a mistake of some kind and have to work out how to solve it.
I'm not following you here.
quote:
Dafyd: There are two things that can be meant by 'logic only gets you so far' - 'logic gives out and no longer applies' and 'you need something in addition to logic'. The second is I think true, while the first is I think false.
But if you need something in addition to logic, then surely logic doesn't apply to this 'something' that you need in addition?
quote:
Dafyd: I'm not sure that is logic. Logic is saying that if we say a about God, then we either retract it or hold onto it, but we don't pretend we didn't say it. Logic is being accountable to each other and ourselves in our speaking.
I wouldn't have a problem with that, but I don't think that this is how logic is being used on the Ship. In the cases I reacted to, it always seemed more like "This is true because of logic, independently of who said it."
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
But if you need something in addition to logic, then surely logic doesn't apply to this 'something' that you need in addition?
Not necessarily.
The other stuff could be impossible to deduce or validate. But still be logically consistent.
So for instance I can't tell that my parents love me and aren't trying out some Machiavellian plan...I have to rely on instinct* for that, but their actions are consistent with loving.
It could be the case that the logic is more contorted, (e.g. when I was smacked for running into the road), (or if I'd been repeatedly smacked because they couldn't cope).
Or this thing called love (to get back to star trek) could truly be illogical (though if Kirk sticks his thing in yours you'll understand it apparently, despite a totally different biology).
*or something.
[edited to add the point]
and those options are still open, even if the later becomes more likely (or indeed other options are added) when we relate it to God or equivalent.
[ 07. October 2012, 14:56: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Jay-Emm: So for instance I can't tell that my parents love me and aren't trying out some Machiavellian plan...I have to rely on instinct* for that, but their actions are consistent with loving.
I have the feeling that some people on this thread seem to have a rather limited definition of love. I think that "I love you" means more than "I won't kill you". It even means more than "I'll treat you nicely." I'm convinced that there are many inconsistencies, illogicalities and paradoxes in love. Ask any married couple.
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
I'm not entirely happy with the way that we're using logic to argue about how non-logical systems must behave.
Although I think your statement is logically invalid (being vaguely equivalent to the Socrates is a cat proof) because the subject is itself logic, does that mess it up?
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
previous post X-posted
It's not sufficient, that's why I have to use 'instinct'. But I'm pretty sure that they don't have to kill me to prove they love me. Indeed I would count that as strong evidence the other way (although not conclusive).
But love means more than "I won't kill you (for my own gain, at your expense)", not less.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Jay-Emm: I'm not entirely happy with the way that we're using logic to argue about how non-logical systems must behave.
I admit to using logic in my arguments, and I realize that there's the danger of a paradox in this. I guess I'm forced to do this, I can only argue on this board using logic. I don't think you'll accept arguments of the form 'butterfly qrzur logic'
But what I'm mostly doing is using logic to show that logic has its limits. I won't try to prove how non-logical systems must behave. I have some ideas of how they could behave, because I believe that love, inspiration, creativity... are such 'systems'. But I can only say things about them based on inspiration. Or gut feeling, if you want.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
SusanDoris: Why do you think mystery is preferable to clarity, I wonder, with regard to God?
To be honest, I like a Mysterious God. Like art, music, love or a good joke, I think He would be much less fun if you could explain Him through logic.
And if you could, of course, atheism would vanish in a moment!
quote:
quote:
SusanDoris: I wonder if you can say why these things are considered worthy of such veneration?
I guess it's simply because they inspire me. A big part of my faith is much more based on inspiration than on logical arguments.
Yes, I understand - I think believing God existed was some part of my motivation when I was younger, but since I have realised that all such thoughts were in and from my mind, I find that more motivating!
quote:
quote:
SusanDoris: Supposing you had a discussion group and I was there and asked (very politely, I assure you
Don't worry, I don't have to be overly polite with my church group, they already know me (And it's more than a discussion group.) But I suspect the answer they would give me would be pretty much in line with my opening post on this thread. I'll definitely ask them the next time I see them.
thank you - I shall be interested to hear what they say!
quote:
Yet, scientists have as yet failed to give a full, logical explanation of love for example.
It works as part of the emotions which have evolved and enabled our species to survive...
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
Ender's Shadow
quote:
Having said all that, it is important to recognise that there ARE areas of mystery - that God has not made clear to us. It is valid to recognise we don't know everything. But where God HAS made it clear, it is sheer rebellion and idolatry to pretend otherwise.
The only way it can be thought that God makes anything clear is by people speaking or writing words that they have in their minds that they believe are from God.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Jay-Emm: It's not sufficient, that's why I have to use 'instinct'.
Do you think you could describe this instinct in logical terms?
quote:
SusanDoris: And if you could, of course, atheism would vanish in a moment!
Hmm, if that could be true...
quote:
SusanDoris: It works as part of the emotions which have evolved and enabled our species to survive...
Of course, you can give all kinds of scientific reasoning that give partial explanations of love: procreation, bonds between the family and the clan, regions in the brain that become more activated when we experience love...
But do they tell the whole story? I don't think that you can prove scientifically that they do. I personally believe that there is more to love, something that science can't explain.
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
The only thing I'm ready to commit to, is God's love.
But why that? The rampant existence of innocent suffering points in the opposite direction. Or is it based on some 'funny feeling' you just 'have'?
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Jay-Emm:[qb] It's not sufficient, that's why I have to use 'instinct'.
Do you think you could describe this instinct in logical terms?
Short answer I don't know, or rather I could describe various different somethings with much of the same attributes. Which are all consistent with logic.
Intuition, etc... could be some form of gamblers fallacy. It doesn't feel right to say that, and it would be illogical to trust it, and we should grow up, Spock wins on 99% of Enterprises, just not the one we watch, etc...
It could be a semi-conscious picking of tiny clues and coming to the logical balance of probabilities. (in many ways this is what I'd favour, for much of what we call).
It could be an area of brain that acts as God's 'hotline' to our lives (which, note, is still quite logical, although seems it if you assume no God, and as it's just a factor in our decisions doesn't quite make us puppets).
It could be our connection to some other mystical atheisticy lifeforcey field.
...(many more 'logical' varients).
Intuition, etc... could be some form of gamblers fallacy. It doesn't feel right to say that, and it would be illogical to trust it.
(and e.g. on the illogical side
Intuition, etc... could be some form of gamblers fallacy. But we should totes go for it.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Jay-Emm: It's not sufficient, that's why I have to use 'instinct'.
Do you think you could describe this instinct in logical terms?
I'm sorry - I don't think I know what 'in logical terms' even means here.
'My family love me,' is not self-contradictory. It is therefore perfectly logical, in so far as that applies to any single statement.
It's true that because of human psychology a wide range of behaviour can be motivated by love, and an even wider range is consistent with love. But if love means anything then a consistent pattern of neglect, abuse, and contempt isn't compatible with it.
I think what I'm trying to say is that whatever your concerns are, they're not concerns with what I think is genuine logic. They may be concerns about misleadingly systematic presentations of arguments, or arguments that start from premises that are too narrow and don't include emotion, and so on. It's possible for an argument to look logical superficially and not be logical. But that doesn't mean logic is insufficient.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Dafyd: Logic in other areas means realising that you've just made a mistake of some kind and have to work out how to solve it.
I'm not following you here.
If you're at the point that you've said two things that can't both be true, you then work back and find out whether you've made a mistake and have to take one back, or whether what you said didn't in fact mean what you think you said.
quote:
quote:
Dafyd: There are two things that can be meant by 'logic only gets you so far' - 'logic gives out and no longer applies' and 'you need something in addition to logic'. The second is I think true, while the first is I think false.
But if you need something in addition to logic, then surely logic doesn't apply to this 'something' that you need in addition?
Not at all. Logic on its own won't tell me where my house keys are. I have to look. But that doesn't mean that logic doesn't apply to looking.
quote:
quote:
Dafyd: I'm not sure that is logic. Logic is saying that if we say a about God, then we either retract it or hold onto it, but we don't pretend we didn't say it. Logic is being accountable to each other and ourselves in our speaking.
I wouldn't have a problem with that, but I don't think that this is how logic is being used on the Ship. In the cases I reacted to, it always seemed more like "This is true because of logic, independently of who said it."
If we say anything at all, we're doing so to achieve, if not agreement, at least a measure of recognition or understanding from the other person. But, yes, logic is independent of who says something. In order for us to have even recognition it has to be based on something that isn't under the sole control of just one of us.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
The only thing I'm ready to commit to, is God's love.
But why that? The rampant existence of innocent suffering points in the opposite direction. Or is it based on some 'funny feeling' you just 'have'?
Partially, yes. Of course, it is based on many thing: the Bible, church, the experiences I had with many people, things I read, discussions I had... But to really commit to my faith, I needed something more. I call it 'inspiration', so I guess it comes down to a funny feeling
I'm coming more and more to the conclusion that maybe we should make a distinction between alogical and illogical. Let me give it a try:
Alogical denotes things that cannot be described in terms of logic, that fall outside of its scope.
Illogical denotes things that are inconsistent within logic.
For example: love to me is logical up to a degree, but it is also for a large part alogical. When you choose your partner, you don't go up to him/her and say: "I've made a list of all your positive and negative characteristics, and I've come to the logical choice that we should be together." That wouldn't be very romantic. There's something that's based on a gut feeling, that logic can't describe. It's outside of its scope.
I believe that in some extent, love is also illogical. For example, I have an aunt and an uncle who have many of these married couple-bickerings between them. They're at it almost every day! And I guess it hurts when this happens. Yet, they have both admitted that these quarrels have strengthened their marriage. Logically, this is a contradiction.
quote:
Dafyd: Logic on its own won't tell me where my house keys are. I have to look. But that doesn't mean that logic doesn't apply to looking.
When I loose my house keys, I can do two things:- Try to remember where I last left them, go systematically through the house...
- Close my eyes, say a prayer to St. Anthony, open my eyes again, look at a random place and hope that they're there.
Method 2 is alogical (and in my experience, much more effective than method 1 )
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If what you are saying is valid, then perhaps there is a kind of logic in God whereby love involves treating people in a way that we normally associate with the word 'hate' here on earth, and so when we trust in his love, we are trusting in something that could hurt us.
Of course there is a kind of logic in God treating people in a way we normally associate with 'hate' but he calls love. And it's found quite commonly although not on such a scale.
"Honey. Whdya have to make me hit you?"
"Honey. It's for your own good I'm hitting you."
"Honey. I'm sorry I sent you to the hospital but you shouldn't have provoked me like that."
"Honey. I was just testing you. Everything's good. You don't have to follow that command through."
"Honey. I know I sent a flood drown your kids. But I'm sorry I overreacted and promise I won't do it again. Look. I even sent you a rainbow to make up for it."
"Honey. I will help you I promise. Even if I went to Pharaoh to change his mind so I could show off and make you even more dependent on me."
[Snip]
"Honey. I'm sorry but it's not my fault I have to torture you in hell."
"Honey. Aren't I nice? Tell me I'm nice. My son took your punishment for you. I don't always have to torture you for being bad."
I want a restraining order from this kind of love!
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
Justinian -
I take it, therefore, that you agree with me that an illogical God cannot be trusted?
Or perhaps you agree with LeRoc and think an illogical God can be trusted?
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Justinian -
I take it, therefore, that you agree with me that an illogical God cannot be trusted?
Or perhaps you agree with LeRoc and think an illogical God can be trusted?
I see no evidence of an illogical God, whether in the sublime and fractal beauty of the universe or the consistently abusive God that appears throughout the Bible and the overwhelming majority of Christian teaching.
I also don't see that trusting an all-powerful being is a meaningful question. We would have no choice other than to trust such a being. In fact a logical God doesn't need to be trusted other than to be God.
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
For example: love to me is logical up to a degree, but it is also for a large part alogical. When you choose your partner, you don't go up to him/her and say: "I've made a list of all your positive and negative characteristics, and I've come to the logical choice that we should be together." That wouldn't be very romantic. There's something that's based on a gut feeling, that logic can't describe. It's outside of its scope.
I believe that in some extent, love is also illogical. For example, I have an aunt and an uncle who have many of these married couple-bickerings between them. They're at it almost every day! And I guess it hurts when this happens. Yet, they have both admitted that these quarrels have strengthened their marriage. Logically, this is a contradiction.
I sympathize with your view to a large degree. The way I think about the role that makes sense for logic to play in our faith is that it is a lot like a skeleton: inherently passive, but necessary for providing structure and leverage. But it takes more than logic alone for it to become really alive and useful - it needs the superimposition of things like love, compassion, empathy, and tolerance. Or as Seeker963 posted a few years ago:
quote:
Just so we're on the same page, I can't 'clarify' anything because I'm not God. As Paul says, I struggle to see through a glass darkly. And then I'm trying to express those vague images in words. Faith is not clarity. It's faith.
But the longer I live, the more I have the conviction that love cuts through all the bullshit and that God is love. And, as time goes on, the more I believe that love is something that does not exist unless it is demonstrated. And I believe that the purpose of doctrine is to elicit love, not the other way around as so many people would seem to have it.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
EtymologicalEvangelical: I take it, therefore, that you agree with me that an illogical God cannot be trusted?
I'm not even sure if to trust in something that's (or Someone who's) 100% logical really counts as faith.
I mean, I trust in mathematics. 1+1=2. Duh. But trusting on that doesn't take any effort. It isn't a big deal.
Sometimes we put faith in a person, and say to them: "I trust in you." When this happens, it's not because we've deducted on the basis of logic how he/she'll act. That kind of faith wouldn't be worth much.
The same with God. Consider for example a prayer like "Dear God. I'll never completely understand You. My logic reaches its limit when it comes to You. But You promised that You love us, and You inspire me to try and carry out some of that love. It is in this love that I trust." This sounds a lot more like faith to me.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc
Consider for example a prayer like "Dear God. I'll never completely understand You. My logic reaches its limit when it comes to You. But You promised that You love us, and You inspire me to try and carry out some of that love. It is in this love that I trust." This sounds a lot more like faith to me.
"Dear God..."
(You are 'God'. This logically means that you are not anything other than God. God = God. God is not non-God. You obey the law of identity. You obey the law of non-contradiction. I am not praying to you, because you are non-God, but because you are God. Thank you for being logical, in being God.
You also exist. I am not praying to you, because you do not exist, but because you exist. Your existence is not non-existence. Thank you for being logical, and existing and not non-existing.)
"I'll never completely understand You."
(Because you are infinitely superior to me, then it follows - logically - that your understanding is infinitely superior to mine. I thank you that my creator's understanding is superior to mine, because it would be illogical for it not to be. Therefore it is entirely logical for me to say that I will never completely understand you.)
"My logic reaches its limit when it comes to You."
(Forgive me, Lord, for using words incorrectly. What I meant to say is that my understanding reaches its limit, but clearly logic is just logic, and since I am using logic to conclude that your understanding is greater than mine - and not less - therefore logic has not reached its limit, in the same way that existence has not reached its limit.)
"But you promised that You love us..."
(You made a promise, and because you are a faithful God, then logically you are someone who keeps his promises. I thank you that you are logical, and are not someone who says he is faithful and then breaks his promises. I thank you that you operate on the logic that says: 'A faithful person must keep his promises.' So I trust in your love, and this love has a particular moral content, which I can understand, because I know that your love does not logically mean that you hate me.)
"...and You inspire me to try and carry out some of that love. It is in this love that I trust."
(And thank you, Lord, for giving me an understanding of that love, so that I can apply it, which logically I could not do if I didn't understand it at all, and thank you for giving me the tool of logic by which I can understand things, such as that your love is not non-love - i.e. hate.)
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
@EtymologicalEvangelical: I can assure you that I have none of these thoughts when I pray this prayer.
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Of course there is a kind of logic in God treating people in a way we normally associate with 'hate' but he calls love. And it's found quite commonly although not on such a scale.
"Honey. Whdya have to make me hit you?"
"Honey. It's for your own good I'm hitting you."
"Honey. I'm sorry I sent you to the hospital but you shouldn't have provoked me like that."
...
"Honey. Aren't I nice? Tell me I'm nice. My son took your punishment for you. I don't always have to torture you for being bad."
I want a restraining order from this kind of love!
The problem with your approach to God is that it reflecting the one dimensional understanding of God as a God of love, not one who is also creator and king of the universe, and our judge. On my understanding He really DOES know what is best for us, so is in a position to punish us appropriately. He has the right to impose punishments on those who resist Him. And He has a right ultimately to cast those who will otherwise mess up His new creation into Hell so that they won't be in a position to do so. THIS IS THE GOD THAT JESUS TAUGHT. He's the one who is the main source for our information on Hell, and does quite often mention it, though usually to his disciples rather than to the wider crowd. If we are seeking to reflect all the truth he is seeking to teach us, we need to ensure that this painfully challenging element does get a look in.
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
Or as Seeker963 posted a few years ago:
quote:
Just so we're on the same page, I can't 'clarify' anything because I'm not God. As Paul says, I struggle to see through a glass darkly. And then I'm trying to express those vague images in words. Faith is not clarity. It's faith.
But the longer I live, the more I have the conviction that love cuts through all the bullshit and that God is love. And, as time goes on, the more I believe that love is something that does not exist unless it is demonstrated. And I believe that the purpose of doctrine is to elicit love, not the other way around as so many people would seem to have it.
We live with a tension here; the problem is that two people can have identical theological beliefs, but whilst for one, God is a dynamic reality in their lives, for the other, He is an unhelpful presence. Or as James puts it: "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder." On the other hand a seriously defective understanding of God may indicate a lack of real knowledge of Him, but sometimes the reality is there. The fact that Bernard of Clairvaux got it howlingly wrong in endorsing the Crusades and Luther supported the viscous suppression of the peasants doesn't mean that they 'weren't Christians'. But at some point we can drift over into rejecting God, which is why Jesus is less than generous in his attitude to the religious leaders of his day.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc
@EtymologicalEvangelical: I can assure you that I have none of these thoughts when I pray this prayer.
Irrelevant to the point I made.
If these thoughts are not there - even if only subconsciously or implicitly - then the prayer has no meaning.
Unless, of course, you pray the prayer believing that God is both God and not God, that he both exists and doesn't exist, that his love could actually be hate, and that he may not really keep his promises.
That would be the "thinking" behind a prayer that denies the validity of logic.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I love it when Vulcans, Klingons and Bajorans try to understand each other.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
EtymologicalEvangelical: If these thoughts are not there - even if only subconsciously or implicitly - then the prayer has no meaning.
I didn't realize that you are the One who decides whether my prayer has meaning or not.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc
I didn't realize that you are the One who decides whether my prayer has meaning or not.
Then don't try to communicate with me then - or with anyone else, if you are expecting people to make sense of your insanity - or should I say, your pernicious attempts to screw up other people's minds.
And by the way... why did you call my views "silly" on the other thread?
I didn't realise that you are the One who decides whether my views are silly or not.
How arrogant!
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Karl: Liberal Backslider: I love it when Vulcans, Klingons and Bajorans try to understand each other.
Can I be a Klingon?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Karl: Liberal Backslider: I love it when Vulcans, Klingons and Bajorans try to understand each other.
Can I be a Klingon?
Sorry mate. You're the Bajoran here.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
Let me try to give an alternative to the prayer I suggested then. I don't really like to do this, as it feels a bit like spoiling a poem (or a good joke) by explaining it, but here goes.
"Dear God..."
(Excuse me for addressing You like this. I don't really know what it means for You to exist.
I mean, I can understand that a table exists, because I can feel and touch it, so it exists in the physical realm. I can understand that Brazil exists, but feeling and touching there isn't enough, I need to go to the legal or the cultural realm. I can understand that love exists in some ways, because it exists in the emotional realm and probably a couple of realms more.
When it comes to you, I wouldn't even pretend to know which kind of realm I should think of, so I'll humbly refrain from thinking too much about what it means for You to exist. What I do know, through the way You revealed Yourself in the Jewish-Christian tradition, is that I may address You as a person. So please forgive me if I humbly do so.)
"I'll never completely understand You."
(Because You are infinitely superior to me. Uhm yes, this means that I'm infinitely inferior to You.)
"My logic reaches its limit when it comes to You."
(Forgive me, Lord, but these are the exact words I intended to use. I know there are things that logic can't fully explain: love, inspiration, selflessness, creativity... I believe that they are connected to You, that You are the Source of them. How can I try to understand the Almighty Source and Embodiment of all these alogical things by logic? That would be silly So I'll humbly refrain from relying too much on logic as a tool to understand You.)
"But you promised that You love us..."
(You made a promise. I don't have any logical proof of this promise. All I have is faith. Through this faith I try to trust in this promise.)
"...and You inspire me to try and carry out some of that love. It is in this love that I trust."
(And thank you, Lord, even I don't fully understand that love. Yes, I know that love isn't hate, but that really doesn't help me much when I try to apply it in practice. What I can do, even without fully understanding Your love, is to try to apply it in the best way possible, inspired by Your love.)
"In Jesus' name, Amen."
(I proabably should have added this.)
quote:
Karl: Liberal Backslider: Sorry mate. You're the Bajoran here.
Darn. And I wanted to use a bat'leth! Oh well, at least I get to screw up people's minds
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The problem with your approach to God is that it reflecting the one dimensional understanding of God as a God of love, not one who is also creator and king of the universe, and our judge. On my understanding He really DOES know what is best for us, so is in a position to punish us appropriately. He has the right to impose punishments on those who resist Him.
But his punishments are unjust. There is no possible finite offence for which eternal punishment can be just - and eternal punishment is not good for anyone. If he does know what is good then by sending anyone to hell he chooses not to do it.
quote:
And He has a right ultimately to cast those who will otherwise mess up His new creation into Hell so that they won't be in a position to do so.
Possibly he has a right to behave like the most evil being it is possible to imagine. This doesn't change the fact that condemning someone to eternal torment is an infinitely evil act and also infinitely unjust and cruel. He may have the right - but that doesn't make it good.
quote:
THIS IS THE GOD THAT JESUS TAUGHT. He's the one who is the main source for our information on Hell, and does quite often mention it, though usually to his disciples rather than to the wider crowd. If we are seeking to reflect all the truth he is seeking to teach us, we need to ensure that this painfully challenging element does get a look in.
Yes. Which is why mainstream Christian morality is nothing more than a thinly warmed over "might makes right" system of ethics in which we suck up to and try to humanise the most powerful and evil being imaginable. The one who deliberately inflicts infinite evil on people and tortures them eternally.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
Am I allowed to redo part of my explanation?
"I'll never completely understand You."
(Because You are infinitely superior to me. Uhm yes, this means that I'm infinitely inferior to You. In fact, You really screwed up this superior-inferior thing when You became a helpless child and later allowed us to nail You on the Cross, didn't You? It seems that You can even make Your superiority become alogical or, dare I say it, illogical.)
Better
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
(Because You are infinitely superior to me. Uhm yes, this means that I'm infinitely inferior to You. In fact, You really screwed up this superior-inferior thing when You became a helpless child and later allowed us to nail You on the Cross, didn't You? It seems that You can even make Your superiority become alogical or, dare I say it, illogical.)
Amen.
And this, to me (a not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist) sums up the whole problem with trying to see God through the lens of human logic. Because if the witness of Scripture is any kind of guide, God simply refuses to play by our ideas of what's logical and what isn't.
Take the book of Job - it's a book that thoroughly upturns any kind of logic. Job does no wrong, yet is subjected an apparently divinely-ordained onslaught of suffering. He protests loudly against the simplistic logic of his "friends", yet it's he who is subjected to the blast of divine indignation. Job submits to this but is commended by God for speaking right when his friends did not - presumably, then, for his protests about his innocence and the disconnect between guilt and suffering. This from the God who's apparently bargained with everything Job holds dear. Where's the logic in that?
Then there's Jesus. In Mark's Gospel, Peter follows the logic of the signs and wonders and teachings of Jesus and declares Him to be Messiah. Yet Jesus immediately undercuts all their logic by declaring that He's now going to go to Jerusalem and be crucified something which, if I understand it correctly, Messiah was simply not expected to do. Human logic is completely missing.
The existence of human suffering in the world, which Ender's Shadow pointed to, surely points away from seeing God in purely logical terms. Logically, if God loves humanity, hates suffering and has the power to end it, then He should be doing that. Yet people are still suffering in the world from things they can have no control over. Logically, it doesn't make any sense.
To see God primarily in terms of human logic is to see things the wrong way round. It puts us in the position of Job's friends, forced to try and make things fit into boxes which they just won't fit into, forced to make assumptions of God and others which simply are true. It makes an idol of human logic and suggests that God should submit to our "right" and "logical" way of thinking, rather than us submitting our logic to His.
I'm as conventional (for a Baptist) as they come, but I'm with LeRoc on this: mystery, not logic, seems a much better basis for our relationship with God.
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
The existence of human suffering in the world, which Ender's Shadow pointed to, surely points away from seeing God in purely logical terms. Logically, if God loves humanity, hates suffering and has the power to end it, then He should be doing that. Yet people are still suffering in the world from things they can have no control over. Logically, it doesn't make any sense.
Baloney. Just because your understanding concludes that it isn't logical, doesn't mean that it isn't. If scientists resorted to that sort of argument every time they stumble across a piece of evidence that doesn't fit their hypothesis, scientific progress would have long since ground to a halt. What we have to do is to engage with the data, and decide whether we can come to understand what other premises we need to look at to add to explain logically what is going on. Jesus' response to the question in Luke 13:1-6 is helpful for me; the right question to ask in the face of my suffering is: 'Why NOT me, given that I am a sinner who deserves permanent separation from God?'. Once you start from that perspective, suffering is a lot simpler to explain.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I wish you good luck with your scientific studies of God, I really do. But I don't think that He is a scientific object can be understood in this way. Once again, to me this would be an attempt to reduce God, to 'put Him in a box' as Stejjie said, and I don't think that I'm allowed to do that.
To come back to the example of love, I don't think that it works this way either. If a couple quarrels, it isn't just a case of 'just look logically at the reasons and if you dig deep enough you'll find a solution.' Maybe some problems can be solved in this way, but definitely not all of them.
The problem of evil and suffering is a difficult one, and to me it can't easily be solved by 'people suffer because they don't repent'. I respect that this is the accepted solution within your faith tradition, but I'm sure you're aware that there are other traditions that have more nuanced views of this.
People have pondered on the problem of suffering since the earliest days. In fact the Bible itself is a record of that, and looks at it from different and often conflicting points of view. Look at the Psalms, Job, the Gospels themselves... There's a rich variety there of people struggling with this problem, and personally this variety of viewpoints is an inspiration to me.
To me, the fact that people are pondering on this problem is a good thing, especially when this also leads to actions to relieve other people's suffering, within the spirit (or should I say Spirit?) that Jesus showed us.
The fact that we don't have a logical answer to this problem doesn't make it easier for us. But that's part of the human condition. I'm not the kind of person that thinks: "I need to have a 100% consistent, proven, logical answer, or else it's all complete chaos." What I can do, even if things aren't 100% logical to me, is to be inspired by the Bible, to try my best to follow Jesus' example, and ultimately to trust in God.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
There are also some fairly straightforward reasons for suffering, which involve the intelligibility of the universe.
Once you accept a material universe, then its intelligibility would seem supremely important, for a rational species as ourselves. It means that we are able to begin to describe and explain its features in terms of regularities.
The issue of pain can be explained in evolutionary terms - it is highly advantageous for living animals, since it warns them of injury, disease, danger, and so on.
There is of course the usual problem here of reconciling evolution, as an unplanned phenomenon, with the idea of a God who plans.
However, leaving that aside, given materiality, pain and suffering are not that mysterious - in fact, you could argue that you can't have one without the other.
Of course, you might then wonder, why a material universe? Why not build a non-material one, without pain and suffering? Well, a material world is good, and worthwhile.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
The existence of human suffering in the world, which Ender's Shadow pointed to, surely points away from seeing God in purely logical terms. Logically, if God loves humanity, hates suffering and has the power to end it, then He should be doing that. Yet people are still suffering in the world from things they can have no control over. Logically, it doesn't make any sense.
Baloney. Just because your understanding concludes that it isn't logical, doesn't mean that it isn't. If scientists resorted to that sort of argument every time they stumble across a piece of evidence that doesn't fit their hypothesis, scientific progress would have long since ground to a halt. What we have to do is to engage with the data, and decide whether we can come to understand what other premises we need to look at to add to explain logically what is going on. Jesus' response to the question in Luke 13:1-6 is helpful for me; the right question to ask in the face of my suffering is: 'Why NOT me, given that I am a sinner who deserves permanent separation from God?'. Once you start from that perspective, suffering is a lot simpler to explain.
Does that explain babies dying of painful diseases? Young children starving to death? They're being punished for being wicked sinners who deserve it?
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
It seems to me that the aspect which is often forgotten in this argument is that Jesus is portrayed as breaking the "intelligibility of the universe" by conducting miracles.
And if the intelligibility of the universe would somehow be affected by a deity who intervened to prevent unearned suffering, then how is the intelligibility not affected by someone who can turn water into wine, who can walk on water and miraculously heal the sick?
So then you can only be left with (a) God intervening is not affecting the intelligibility of the universe and (b) he could interfere but is choosing not to.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Well, if God intervened in a major way, say, every time somebody was going to have a car crash, an angel interceded, and prevented it, then the universe would no longer be intelligible, clearly. The laws of physics would be shredded.
In such a situation, humans would be in a complete pickle, in terms of their ability to grasp the regularities of the physical universe. It's possible that science itself would be impossible.
Well, I see this as a reply to those atheists who sometimes ask why God doesn't regularly perform miracles.
The point is, that for a rational God, intelligibility and order would be very high on the list of desirable features to a universe, and for rational beings such as humans, they are essential.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, if God intervened in a major way, say, every time somebody was going to have a car crash, an angel interceded, and prevented it, then the universe would no longer be intelligible, clearly. The laws of physics would be shredded.
Any time he intervened the laws of physics would be shredded. Why should you get to determine which interference is major and which is minor?
quote:
The point is, that for a rational God, intelligibility and order would be very high on the list of desirable features to a universe, and for rational beings such as humans, they are essential.
Right. Therefore God does not interfere. Ever.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Well, I used 'major' there to mean regularly. If God intervened every time there was a car crash, or every time somebody was ill, that would be pretty major!
So, if God exists, why wouldn't he do that? It just seems to me because it would destroy the intelligibility of the universe, which would make life for rational beings (humans), very difficult. In fact, it might make life difficult for all animals.
This question obviously comes up in terms of the apparent contradiction between a loving God and 'natural evil', which God appears to permit. If he didn't permit it, there would be no material universe as we know it.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl
Well, if God intervened in a major way, say, every time somebody was going to have a car crash, an angel interceded, and prevented it, then the universe would no longer be intelligible, clearly. The laws of physics would be shredded.
In such a situation, humans would be in a complete pickle, in terms of their ability to grasp the regularities of the physical universe. It's possible that science itself would be impossible.
Well, I see this as a reply to those atheists who sometimes ask why God doesn't regularly perform miracles.
The point is, that for a rational God, intelligibility and order would be very high on the list of desirable features to a universe, and for rational beings such as humans, they are essential.
You (and the long ranger) might want to read this post.
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Baloney. Just because your understanding concludes that it isn't logical, doesn't mean that it isn't. If scientists resorted to that sort of argument every time they stumble across a piece of evidence that doesn't fit their hypothesis, scientific progress would have long since ground to a halt. What we have to do is to engage with the data, and decide whether we can come to understand what other premises we need to look at to add to explain logically what is going on. Jesus' response to the question in Luke 13:1-6 is helpful for me; the right question to ask in the face of my suffering is: 'Why NOT me, given that I am a sinner who deserves permanent separation from God?'. Once you start from that perspective, suffering is a lot simpler to explain.
Simpler, or more simplistic? There's huge gaps in that account that skips over huge amounts of data. Firstly, what about babies born with illnesses, babies who are still-born? Do they deserve to suffer? What about Christians who go through suffering; presumably they have been made justified, made right with God (in one view of the scheme of things) - by this account, shouldn't they be exempt from suffering? Yet we know us Christians are not exempt.
Secondly, it skips over huge amounts of Scripture that speak of the exact opposite. Take Jesus' words in Matthew 5, where Jesus calls on His disciples to love their enemies because that's what God does, sending sun and rain on both the righteous and the unrighteous. Or what about the aforementioned book of Job which, for all its apparent illogicality, strongly protests against the idea that people suffer because they've done wrong or are sinful. I think an argument could be made that the world is as it is because of sin - but I'm really not sure that that's the same as what you're arguing (that we should just accept suffering because that's what we deserve).
So I think there's huge gaps in your data which undermine the logic you see in your conclusion.
Which was the point I was trying to make. God is not a scientific hypothesis to be tested. Believing in God, having faith in God, is not just about finding material evidence for God's existence and trusting in that, otherwise why would we walk by "faith and not by sight"? Science is important and crucial and I agree with your point about the importance of it to human existence (though it could be seen as a double-edged sword). But our call is not to try and prove God using these methods, using science and logic and the rest of it - it's something far greater and deeper than that.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I'm also puzzled what 'you're suffering because you don't repent' might mean in pastoral terms. Suppose a preacher is visiting a nice elderly lady in the hospital who has cancer. She might have had a naughty thought or two in her life, but she's just a very nice, Christian person, good for everyone around her.
The preacher tells her to repent. She really does, although she hasn't done that much wrong in her life. But no matter how much she repents, the cancer gets stronger and stronger, and her pain grows.
[ 11. October 2012, 11:23: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
The problem of evil and suffering is a difficult one, and to me it can't easily be solved by 'people suffer because they don't repent'. I respect that this is the accepted solution within your faith tradition, but I'm sure you're aware that there are other traditions that have more nuanced views of this.
Oh please - read what I said, not what you jumped to assuming what I said. What I said is that suffering is as a result of sin in the world. We have all sinned, and the claim of Christianity is NOT that repentance is remove all the consequences of sin, but that your faith will offer a way to cope for now, and the prospect of being in a world in the future where 'God will wipe away every tear' and suffering and pain will be no more. Now, to be fair to you, there are people within the charismatic tradition who would go a stage further and argue that we can expect to live pain and suffering free, but I'm not one of them; the clear evidence of the epistles, including Timothy's stomach, torpedoes that logic.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
The existence of human suffering in the world, which Ender's Shadow pointed to, surely points away from seeing God in purely logical terms. Logically, if God loves humanity, hates suffering and has the power to end it, then He should be doing that. Yet people are still suffering in the world from things they can have no control over. Logically, it doesn't make any sense.
Baloney. Just because your understanding concludes that it isn't logical, doesn't mean that it isn't. If scientists resorted to that sort of argument every time they stumble across a piece of evidence that doesn't fit their hypothesis, scientific progress would have long since ground to a halt. What we have to do is to engage with the data, and decide whether we can come to understand what other premises we need to look at to add to explain logically what is going on. Jesus' response to the question in Luke 13:1-6 is helpful for me; the right question to ask in the face of my suffering is: 'Why NOT me, given that I am a sinner who deserves permanent separation from God?'. Once you start from that perspective, suffering is a lot simpler to explain.
Does that explain babies dying of painful diseases? Young children starving to death? They're being punished for being wicked sinners who deserve it?
Yes, but I suspect you're not going to agree. For me it is clear from the teaching of the bible - especially for example the story of David's first child by Bathsheba dying because of their sin - that God treats the children as being, to some extent, an extension of the parents. Therefore 'innocent' suffering is legitimated from God's perspective, which I regard as the only issue. YMMV Note that this is the flip side of children benefiting from the positive aspects of their parents; the same sort of spiritual process of 'reaping what is sown' result in the two effects.
The other suggestion is that in fact even babies knowingly act selfishly - or so parents have assured me. In that context they are acting sinfully, so are no longer innocent.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Have you any idea how morally repugnant that appears, ES? That God would splat my kids because of something I'd do?
What sort of evil monster do you call God that gives babies painful conditions to punish their parents.
Extremely fucking hell.
[ 11. October 2012, 14:19: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Have you any idea how morally repugnant that appears, ES? That God would splat my kids because of something I'd do?
What sort of evil monster do you call God that gives babies painful conditions to punish their parents.
Extremely fucking hell.
IMNSHO it seems to me that part of your problem is that you assume that being splatted is the end of the world. In the context of eternity, an early death is really neither here nor there - or as Paul puts it: "For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us."
And note that the reality is that children do suffer for the sins of their parents. ALL the time. It's the way the world's set up. If mummy is an alcoholic, baby will suffer. If Dad is a wimp, the child will suffer. If the parents don't care enough to enforce meaningful boundaries, the teenager will be a mess. On the whole I don't think this makes God evil - just someone who is foolish enough to take an enormous risk with the children that he allows to be born into the world.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0