Kevin's Watch

Okay, so I’ve been thinking a lot about God, how different religions interpret their idiosyncratic God, and more about how different people interpret the same God.

Now, I’m an atheist; or rather I am when it comes to any answer organized religion has to offer. Nevertheless, I want to ask several questions to you all. I don’t mean or want these to be considered an attack to any beliefs some of you might hold; I’m genuinely interested in any answers given.

I want to discuss the subject of free will; many religious people believe that God is all knowing and all powerful; that he has a “plan for us all”. I have a problem with this on several levels.

Okay, so if we are to take account that God is all knowing and has a plan for us all; then several questions; Firstly, what is the point in being here? I have a friend who is quite a devout Catholic, and believes that if there is no God, then there is no meaning to life, to living.

However I am of the opposite opinion; if we are the product of an omnipotent and omnipresent being, and all our decisions are made for us; then what’s the point? We are no more than robots or tools reading from a script formed by someone else; Would it not hold that if we were perfectly shaped and given no choice of our own, that our lives would be devoid of meaning and choice?

There are also many implications in upholding such a belief; if this is true; then would it not hold that no one is a true sinner; the murderers, rapists, and paedophiles etc, are not wrong doing within themselves; because they are merely reading the script from a God that has a concrete plan for us all?

Another implication of God having a plan for us all… then what does the world we live in today say about God, his personality, his moral compass? I know that many people belief that we cannot judge God; he is beyond understanding; it would be arrogant to even assume that we could even contemplate doing so. This to me seems to be a cheap answer provided by organized religion to not question the rules they deem righteous. In questioning the right to “judge” God; I’m not talking about the sort of judgement that we get in a trial; no, I am saying we have a right to analyze any actions purportedly taken by God and consider and apply meaning to them; whether in a positive or negative light.

Back to the question at hand; if God is all knowing and has a plan for us all; then (and yes, sorry to throw this one into the mix) why war, disease, cancer in child, cancer at all for that matter? Now, my religious friends that I’ve spoken to this say something along the lines of “War is a man actions, not God’s”. I agree, however these are also the same people that hold to the fact “God has a plan for us all”. This doesn’t really hang together for me; the only way these concepts can make sense when thrown together is if God is morally empty.

I want to get other view points on these subjects. Summarizing; Does God have a complete plan for us all? If so, does that not make our lives redundant? What moral implications are implied by the fact a divine being would go out of his why to create robots reading from a script? Are we sinless as a result? What sort of being is God if he created a world with so much pain in it?

My personal opinion is a lot like Mr Donaldson‘s in fact; if there is a God, then he would have created us; or permitted an environment in which we would have eventually been created, and essentially did not choose to involve himself at all. How could he without taking away meaning and choice away from the beings he brought into the universe? How can we have any integrity otherwise? That’s largely why I don’t in any way hold to any organized religion. If God created us to obey rules (as many, but not all) consider that he did and is all powerful at the same time; then he would have just made us that way. “Thou shall not kill”, fine, create us so we’re not capable of killing.

There's absolutely no way I can believe in a pre-ordained plan, everything is evolving, revolving and changing. Anything else would be positively boring. I see God in every thing. Just by observing the object we change it, there's no difference between spirituality and quantum physics.

Revan wrote:
I want to discuss the subject of free will; many religious people believe that God is all knowing and all powerful; that he has a “plan for us all”. I have a problem with this on several levels.

As do I, to a certain degree.

Okay, so if we are to take account that God is all knowing and has a plan for us all; then several questions; Firstly, what is the point in being here? I have a friend who is quite a devout Catholic, and believes that if there is no God, then there is no meaning to life, to living.

However I am of the opposite opinion; if we are the product of an omnipotent and omnipresent being, and all our decisions are made for us; then what’s the point? We are no more than robots or tools reading from a script formed by someone else; Would it not hold that if we were perfectly shaped and given no choice of our own, that our lives would be devoid of meaning and choice?

You'd be devoid of choice, but not necesarily of meaning. When I speak of meaning here, I speak of it in the "purpose" sense. A hammer, for example, can not make choices, but it definitely has meaning, or a purpose. Now, on another note, if we are just "tools", that would imply that choice is meaningless. IOW, it would serve no purpose in the meaning of our creation.

Another implication of God having a plan for us all… then what does the world we live in today say about God, his personality, his moral compass? I know that many people belief that we cannot judge God; he is beyond understanding; it would be arrogant to even assume that we could even contemplate doing so. This to me seems to be a cheap answer provided by organized religion to not question the rules they deem righteous. In questioning the right to “judge” God; I’m not talking about the sort of judgement that we get in a trial; no, I am saying we have a right to analyze any actions purportedly taken by God and consider and apply meaning to them; whether in a positive or negative light.

"Inscrutable His ways are, and immune/To catechism by a mind too strewn/With petty cares to slightly understand/What awful brain compels His awful hand"

Back to the question at hand; if God is all knowing and has a plan for us all; then (and yes, sorry to throw this one into the mix) why war, disease, cancer in child, cancer at all for that matter? Now, my religious friends that I’ve spoken to this say something along the lines of “War is a man actions, not God’s”. I agree, however these are also the same people that hold to the fact “God has a plan for us all”. This doesn’t really hang together for me; the only way these concepts can make sense when thrown together is if God is morally empty.

Or if morality flows from God, in either case it will have the effect of morality seeming arbitrary.

I want to get other view points on these subjects. Summarizing; Does God have a complete plan for us all? If so, does that not make our lives redundant? What moral implications are implied by the fact a divine being would go out of his why to create robots reading from a script? Are we sinless as a result? What sort of being is God if he created a world with so much pain in it?

By most common concepts of God, God can not be omnipotent. Omnipotent means you can do anything, however in the rhetoric of many of the religious, there are limits. Here are a few:

1)God can not sin.
2)God can only achieve eternal happiness for his creation in a very specific way. If He were omnipotent, the idea that He allows evil because He has to is ridiculous.
3)He can not save all of his creation, for he can not dwell with unclean things, as it were. This idea, of course, flies in the face of the doctrine that Jesus is a manifestation of God and that God permeates all space (omnipresent) which implies that he would be present in hell as well.

I think it ultimately depends on what you want your God to be. If you want your God to be perfectly rational, I think then he can not be omnipotent. Then again, if he isn't omnipotent, then there is no guarantee that he will always be able to assist us and procure eternal happiness for us. The popular concept of God is undergoing a revolution, and ultimately, I think that we're going to end up with a Donaldsonian God

I'm baa-ack!
I should preface my comments by saying that it is still difficult for me to post on two levels - one, finding time, and two, discouragement and a growing unwillingness to say anything to people that don't want to listen (or to listen to what THEY say for the very same reason).

Also, Fist is deservingly waiting for great and wise comments from me, and I have a plan to develop them with the help of a group of Russians - we're planning to meet, read and discuss "The Superstition of Divorce".

Still, I can't help noticing how dead the Close has been while I've been gone. maybe ya shoulda given me the Watchie for contributor to the Close....?

Revan wrote: Okay, so I’ve been thinking a lot about God, how different religions interpret their idiosyncratic God, and more about how different people interpret the same God.

Now, I’m an atheist; or rather I am when it comes to any answer organized religion has to offer. Nevertheless, I want to ask several questions to you all. I don’t mean or want these to be considered an attack to any beliefs some of you might hold; I’m genuinely interested in any answers given.

I want to discuss the subject of free will; many religious people believe that God is all knowing and all powerful; that he has a “plan for us all”. I have a problem with this on several levels.

It's difficult to get answers from believers when the dominant mood in the community is unbelieving. You have to get answers from people who believe, and believe determinedly. Still, a diminishing part of me feels called to answer these particular questions - which I think very good questions when asked honestly.

Your opening comments on being an atheist suggest that you have thoroughly examined all significant answers which "organized religion" has to offer; something I find improbable. Also, I see a danger in reducing/oversimplifying worldviews (your current understanding of them) - certainly, I am familiar with far more sophisticated answers than merely that "God has a plan for us all".

There are millions of opinions;

There are dozens of points of view until you know the right answer; then there is only one.

Being of an opinion is no merit in and of itself - the question is whether the opinion is actually the truth or not. This is the quest that (I hope) we are engaged in.

Revan wrote:Okay, so if we are to take account that God is all knowing and has a plan for us all; then several questions; Firstly, what is the point in being here? I have a friend who is quite a devout Catholic, and believes that if there is no God, then there is no meaning to life, to living.

However I am of the opposite opinion; if we are the product of an omnipotent and omnipresent being, and all our decisions are made for us; then what’s the point? We are no more than robots or tools reading from a script formed by someone else; Would it not hold that if we were perfectly shaped and given no choice of our own, that our lives would be devoid of meaning and choice?

There are also many implications in upholding such a belief; if this is true; then would it not hold that no one is a true sinner; the murderers, rapists, and paedophiles etc, are not wrong doing within themselves; because they are merely reading the script from a God that has a concrete plan for us all?

The answer to the question of what our purpose here is depends on which authority you accept to give the answer - although the Catholic and Orthodox ones are largely in agreement on most points, even if they disagree in certain important particulars.

Where I think you are very right, and actually in agreement with your Catholic friend, is in your rejection of Calvinistic determinism. It is possible that a) your friend doesn't understand the teachings of his own Church or b) (slightly more likely) that you don't correctly understand what your friend is saying. But you are quite right as far as the question of determinism goes.

Revan wrote:Another implication of God having a plan for us all… then what does the world we live in today say about God, his personality, his moral compass? I know that many people belief that we cannot judge God; he is beyond understanding; it would be arrogant to even assume that we could even contemplate doing so. This to me seems to be a cheap answer provided by organized religion to not question the rules they deem righteous. In questioning the right to “judge” God; I’m not talking about the sort of judgement that we get in a trial; no, I am saying we have a right to analyze any actions purportedly taken by God and consider and apply meaning to them; whether in a positive or negative light.

A determination of "right to judge" still comes down to a sort of trial, however you care to dress it.
There are two ways of looking at this. One is the way you have taken: how does the world judge God? (How much has God veered from our ideas of right and wrong? - rather brilliantly answered by Lewis in "God in the Dock") The other way is to ask whether it is the world that has veered from the moral compass of God?
But again, it is your assumptions of the Christian answer that seem oversimplified. I haven't even gotten to the bottom of all of them, and on many I have only scratched the surface. That's what we get for off-handedly dismissing two millenia of developed theology.

Here, although I could have misread, I see an assumption of "rules" as if they were arbitrarily determined, rather than being a result of a holistic view that leads to the proper operation of the system (as the "rules" of a user's manual are for) or the happiness of the organisms in question (humans).

We know, and are painfully aware of what the world today has to say about God and religion. We know that sexual morality and chastity are extremely unpopular, that it is far more convenient to kill babies before we can see them outside of their mothers as babies, that control of one's desires (aka "passions") is extremely unpopular, and that many things advocated by traditional Christianity (the most likely target of the label "organized religion") are similarly unpopular.
This, of course, IS explained within the worldview of the Christian Church (by which I most specifically mean the Orthodox Church, but accept other Churches to the extent that they agree) - it is a nature that is fallen, that is broken off from a natural relationship with God and seeks to fill that gap with other things.

Finally, your understanding of "actions purportedly taken by God" depends on the authority which you accept as most correctly describing and interpreting them.

Revan wrote: Back to the question at hand; if God is all knowing and has a plan for us all; then (and yes, sorry to throw this one into the mix) why war, disease, cancer in child, cancer at all for that matter? Now, my religious friends that I’ve spoken to this say something along the lines of “War is a man actions, not God’s”. I agree, however these are also the same people that hold to the fact “God has a plan for us all”. This doesn’t really hang together for me; the only way these concepts can make sense when thrown together is if God is morally empty.

This is the problem of evil, or the problem of pain. My best reference on an intelligent treatment on the subject is Lewis's book, "The Problem of Pain". At the very least, I think it will give you a more intelligible conception of the Christian view than the one you currently have.
Simply put (if that is at all possible) it is the antithesis of determinism - free will - the fact that God could not possibly have created a world of free creations AND completely circumvent their freedom by forcing them to conform to some "plan". If God gives us freedom, that must include the freedom to make the wrong choices, and this is, generally speaking what we do. Thus, suffering and evil - thanks to us and our bad choices - made possible by our freedom.

Again, I think you misunderstood your Catholic friend. He could not be advocating determinism AND be a Catholic faithfully reporting the teachings of his Church. Now what I think your friend meant is that God "did" have a plan for us from the beginning - and that, being outside of time, he knew the whole story, but nevertheless "decided" it worth the "risk". (It's difficult applying verb tenses to a Being not in Time at all, Time being a creation of said Being.)

The best way to understand God, His plans and free will is to be a parent yourself. Having children provides wonderful clarity on our will for them, what we want, and our pain and anguish when they do not conform to our will and insist on making mistakes, sometimes dangerous, and even fatal ones. It's easy to see how we must, as they grow, gradually grant them freedom and suffer risk that they will not do what we see to be best for them. (All analogies have their limits).

Revan wrote:I want to get other view points on these subjects. Summarizing; Does God have a complete plan for us all? If so, does that not make our lives redundant? What moral implications are implied by the fact a divine being would go out of his why to create robots reading from a script? Are we sinless as a result? What sort of being is God if he created a world with so much pain in it?

My personal opinion is a lot like Mr Donaldson‘s in fact; if there is a God, then he would have created us; or permitted an environment in which we would have eventually been created, and essentially did not choose to involve himself at all. How could he without taking away meaning and choice away from the beings he brought into the universe? How can we have any integrity otherwise? That’s largely why I don’t in any way hold to any organized religion. If God created us to obey rules (as many, but not all) consider that he did and is all powerful at the same time; then he would have just made us that way. “Thou shall not kill”, fine, create us so we’re not capable of killing.

This is kind of a sum up. I've already addressed the idea of "rules", and if he created us incapable of killing, then so much for our freedom to choose to not kill. If SRD does hold such a view (and I'll grant nuances that others more knowledgeable will add, but it looks like, in the rough, you've nailed it) I'd say it's a pretty limited and uniformed view based on his early experiences (like so many of us); what I think of as "a second-grader's understanding of Christianity" - one ignorant of serious and intelligent adult polemics and theology, especially of the most traditional and organized religions - which modern evangelical Protestantism is mostly not; therefore, most haven't experienced them as adults).

rusmeister wrote:Still, I can't help noticing how dead the Close has been while I've been gone. maybe ya shoulda given me the Watchie for contributor to the Close....?

Absolutely. I voted for you.

Revan wrote:Okay, so if we are to take account that God is all knowing and has a plan for us all; then several questions; Firstly, what is the point in being here? I have a friend who is quite a devout Catholic, and believes that if there is no God, then there is no meaning to life, to living.

That's the way some feel about it. I feel quite the opposite. Yes, I agree with your next paragraphs, but I don't believe any of that is the case anyway, since I do not believe there is any g/God. Nevertheless, my life has meaning. To me, and given by me. And I'm very happy with that meaning.

Orlion wrote:You'd be devoid of choice, but not necesarily of meaning. When I speak of meaning here, I speak of it in the "purpose" sense. A hammer, for example, can not make choices, but it definitely has meaning, or a purpose. Now, on another note, if we are just "tools", that would imply that choice is meaningless. IOW, it would serve no purpose in the meaning of our creation.

That's a very good way of explaining that idea.

rusmeister wrote:Your opening comments on being an atheist suggest that you have thoroughly examined all significant answers which "organized religion" has to offer; something I find improbable.

True enough. Of course, I'm on record for saying I don't have any reason to examine any more than I already have. If I'm given reason to suspect one of the X-number of answers does accurately describe existence, then I'll examine it.

rusmeister wrote:Also, I see a danger in reducing/oversimplifying worldviews (your current understanding of them) - certainly, I am familiar with far more sophisticated answers than merely that "God has a plan for us all".

I once read that some of the highly revered Zen Buddhist texts can be incomprehensible. Even non-sensical. But, they were written by people who were viewing things through the lens of much greater, in-depth study of the topic. More sophisticated. I'm lost pretty darned quick when I try to understand relativity. A certain level of understanding of math and physics is required, or it sounds a bit crazy. (Of course, it can be, and has been, proven in ways that do not require understanding of that stuff. Like the extraordinarily accurate clocks that are synchronized, then moved at different speeds, or taken to the top of a mountain and bottom of a valley, and end up having different times.)

rusmeister wrote:There are millions of opinions;

There are dozens of points of view until you know the right answer; then there is only one.

Being of an opinion is no merit in and of itself - the question is whether the opinion is actually the truth or not. This is the quest that (I hope) we are engaged in.

Absolutely! Unfortunately, how that truth is determined is a matter of opinion.

There is no truth.

--A

At least someone voted for him and you know that's why I love you Eric...razz

rusmeister wrote:Your opening comments on being an atheist suggest that you have thoroughly examined all significant answers which "organized religion" has to offer; something I find improbable.

rusmeister wrote:I should preface my comments by saying that it is still difficult for me to post on two levels - one, finding time, and two, discouragement and a growing unwillingness to say anything to people that don't want to listen (or to listen to what THEY say for the very same reason).

rusmeister wrote:If SRD does hold such a view (and I'll grant nuances that others more knowledgeable will add, but it looks like, in the rough, you've nailed it) I'd say it's a pretty limited and uniformed view based on his early experiences (like so many of us); what I think of as "a second-grader's understanding of Christianity" - one ignorant of serious and intelligent adult polemics and theology, especially of the most traditional and organized religions - which modern evangelical Protestantism is mostly not; therefore, most haven't experienced them as adults).

Uh, welcome back, Rusmeister

Orlion wrote:

Revan wrote:
I want to discuss the subject of free will; many religious people believe that God is all knowing and all powerful; that he has a “plan for us all”. I have a problem with this on several levels.

As do I, to a certain degree.

Okay, so if we are to take account that God is all knowing and has a plan for us all; then several questions; Firstly, what is the point in being here? I have a friend who is quite a devout Catholic, and believes that if there is no God, then there is no meaning to life, to living.

However I am of the opposite opinion; if we are the product of an omnipotent and omnipresent being, and all our decisions are made for us; then what’s the point? We are no more than robots or tools reading from a script formed by someone else; Would it not hold that if we were perfectly shaped and given no choice of our own, that our lives would be devoid of meaning and choice?

You'd be devoid of choice, but not necesarily of meaning. When I speak of meaning here, I speak of it in the "purpose" sense. A hammer, for example, can not make choices, but it definitely has meaning, or a purpose. Now, on another note, if we are just "tools", that would imply that choice is meaningless. IOW, it would serve no purpose in the meaning of our creation.

Another implication of God having a plan for us all… then what does the world we live in today say about God, his personality, his moral compass? I know that many people belief that we cannot judge God; he is beyond understanding; it would be arrogant to even assume that we could even contemplate doing so. This to me seems to be a cheap answer provided by organized religion to not question the rules they deem righteous. In questioning the right to “judge” God; I’m not talking about the sort of judgement that we get in a trial; no, I am saying we have a right to analyze any actions purportedly taken by God and consider and apply meaning to them; whether in a positive or negative light.

"Inscrutable His ways are, and immune/To catechism by a mind too strewn/With petty cares to slightly understand/What awful brain compels His awful hand"

Back to the question at hand; if God is all knowing and has a plan for us all; then (and yes, sorry to throw this one into the mix) why war, disease, cancer in child, cancer at all for that matter? Now, my religious friends that I’ve spoken to this say something along the lines of “War is a man actions, not God’s”. I agree, however these are also the same people that hold to the fact “God has a plan for us all”. This doesn’t really hang together for me; the only way these concepts can make sense when thrown together is if God is morally empty.

Or if morality flows from God, in either case it will have the effect of morality seeming arbitrary.

I want to get other view points on these subjects. Summarizing; Does God have a complete plan for us all? If so, does that not make our lives redundant? What moral implications are implied by the fact a divine being would go out of his why to create robots reading from a script? Are we sinless as a result? What sort of being is God if he created a world with so much pain in it?

By most common concepts of God, God can not be omnipotent. Omnipotent means you can do anything, however in the rhetoric of many of the religious, there are limits. Here are a few:

1)God can not sin.
2)God can only achieve eternal happiness for his creation in a very specific way. If He were omnipotent, the idea that He allows evil because He has to is ridiculous.
3)He can not save all of his creation, for he can not dwell with unclean things, as it were. This idea, of course, flies in the face of the doctrine that Jesus is a manifestation of God and that God permeates all space (omnipresent) which implies that he would be present in hell as well.

I think it ultimately depends on what you want your God to be. If you want your God to be perfectly rational, I think then he can not be omnipotent. Then again, if he isn't omnipotent, then there is no guarantee that he will always be able to assist us and procure eternal happiness for us. The popular concept of God is undergoing a revolution, and ultimately, I think that we're going to end up with a Donaldsonian God

Hi, Orlion!

Your comment on purpose is right on - it just seems to me to be obvious.

I think certain aspects of morality are more clouded than others in various ages. Thus, the society of ancient Rome saw no problem with slavery, the seventeenth century saw no problem with smoking, and our society sees no problem in complete abandonment of sexual morality. The main thing to test that is to follow Lewis's rule and read lots of old books (actually, to never read a new book without reading an old one first) - it really shows up ways in which both we might feel superior (morally) to prior societies, and how they might feel superiority over us.
Grasping this would alleviate the feeling of "arbitrariness". It would show absolutes , different aspects of which different societies bent away from to greater or lesser degrees.

Your last comment is rather easy to refute. What you are proposing, basically, is that "omnipotence" should include the ability to do the intrinsically impossible. This is not logical. If I am fat, then it is intrinsically possible for me to also be thin. If God is the very essence of good, then it is logically impossible for Him to also be the essence of evil. This is not a question of "impotence". It is a demand that the logically impossible be possible, which it cannot be. Thus, the whole argument about "God being able to make a rock that's too heavy for Him to lift" is just sheer nonsense, on the level of "What does the color yellow smell like?".
Thus, there is no contradiction between God's omnipotence and free will.

On your point #3, it's worth pointing out that a widespread Orthodox conception is that God IS everywhere, and that for people who have taught themselves to hate Him, that presence, which is a consuming fire, will be hell, whereas those that have learned to love Him (the first and greatest commandment) - and to love all that is good will find it to be heaven. Thus, the spacial conception of "hell is HERE" and "heaven is HERE" in a locational sense may need to be abandoned, or at least, not held as correct and complete expressions of reality.

My thanks to you, Fist!
(For voting for me at least - I didn't vote at all...)

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:Your opening comments on being an atheist suggest that you have thoroughly examined all significant answers which "organized religion" has to offer; something I find improbable.

True enough. Of course, I'm on record for saying I don't have any reason to examine any more than I already have. If I'm given reason to suspect one of the X-number of answers does accurately describe existence, then I'll examine it.

Fair enough. Hopefully you'll come across reasons if we engage long enough.

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:Also, I see a danger in reducing/oversimplifying worldviews (your current understanding of them) - certainly, I am familiar with far more sophisticated answers than merely that "God has a plan for us all".

I once read that some of the highly revered Zen Buddhist texts can be incomprehensible. Even non-sensical. But, they were written by people who were viewing things through the lens of much greater, in-depth study of the topic. More sophisticated. I'm lost pretty darned quick when I try to understand relativity. A certain level of understanding of math and physics is required, or it sounds a bit crazy. (Of course, it can be, and has been, proven in ways that do not require understanding of that stuff. Like the extraordinarily accurate clocks that are synchronized, then moved at different speeds, or taken to the top of a mountain and bottom of a valley, and end up having different times.)

No argument here. It is the realization that the arguments for faith are far deeper than popular perception paints them to be.

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:There are millions of opinions;

There are dozens of points of view until you know the right answer; then there is only one.

Being of an opinion is no merit in and of itself - the question is whether the opinion is actually the truth or not. This is the quest that (I hope) we are engaged in.

Absolutely! Unfortunately, how that truth is determined is a matter of opinion.

Actually, it's the other way around - that "matter of opinion" is subject to the truth - the actual fact of the matter of how we ultimately came into being and whether that was random chance or an act of Creation and consequently, whether there is a purpose or destiny beyond that of the fact of our lives and deaths as we perceive them. The opinion, whatever it is, is ultimately true or false. That is the only basis for rational thinking and being able to claim to know anything at all.

rusmeister wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:There are millions of opinions; Being of an opinion is no merit in and of itself - the question is whether the opinion is actually the truth or not. This is the quest that (I hope) we are engaged in.

Absolutely! Unfortunately, how that truth is determined is a matter of opinion.

Actually, it's the other way around - that "matter of opinion" is subject to the truth - the actual fact of the matter of how we ultimately came into being and whether that was random chance or an act of Creation and consequently, whether there is a purpose or destiny beyond that of the fact of our lives and deaths as we perceive them. The opinion, whatever it is, is ultimately true or false. That is the only basis for rational thinking and being able to claim to know anything at all.

Yes. Either the universe was caused, or it was not. One or the other is a fact.

But it is impossible to know which is the fact. Those who claim to know one or the other to be fact do not know it to be fact. They merely have an opinion. A belief. Science tells us that the Big Bang obliterated all evidence of anything that came before itself, if there was anything before it. And traditional Christianity (the most likely target of the label "organized religion") tells us that such things must be accepted without proof; on faith. Both sides argue that it is not possible to know which is the truth. Those who say either is the truth can only state an opinion. Whether or not it actually is true cannot be known.

Yep, it's only the uncertain who have the moral high ground.

--A

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:Absolutely! Unfortunately, how that truth is determined is a matter of opinion.

Actually, it's the other way around - that "matter of opinion" is subject to the truth - the actual fact of the matter of how we ultimately came into being and whether that was random chance or an act of Creation and consequently, whether there is a purpose or destiny beyond that of the fact of our lives and deaths as we perceive them. The opinion, whatever it is, is ultimately true or false. That is the only basis for rational thinking and being able to claim to know anything at all.

Yes. Either the universe was caused, or it was not. One or the other is a fact.

But it is impossible to know which is the fact. Those who claim to know one or the other to be fact do not know it to be fact. They merely have an opinion. A belief. Science tells us that the Big Bang obliterated all evidence of anything that came before itself, if there was anything before it. And traditional Christianity (the most likely target of the label "organized religion") tells us that such things must be accepted without proof; on faith. Both sides argue that it is not possible to know which is the truth. Those who say either is the truth can only state an opinion. Whether or not it actually is true cannot be known.

That is a final dogma that is thoroughly as unassailable as the idea that it can be possible to know truth (through revelation, for example). Of the two, I'd say that mine allows the greater freedom, because it allows for the possibility.

Yes. Apologies. We're talking about two things at once. One is the reason an individual believes one or the other to be an accurate description of the universe. The other is whether or not that reason is something that should be accepted by others.

Certainly, personal revelation is a somewhat common example of the former. I've known several people who have not the slightest doubt that they heard and/or saw God, or one of his agents. There is no doubt that it is why many people believe what they believe. (Although it gets a bit sticky when different people have had personal revelations that are mutually exclusive.)

But personal revelation cannot possibly be considered to be a reason for anyone else to accept that truth. Aside from being a silly way of trying to convince others, it violates the very definition of personal revelation.

Fist and Faith wrote:Yes. Apologies. We're talking about two things at once. One is the reason an individual believes one or the other to be an accurate description of the universe. The other is whether or not that reason is something that should be accepted by others.

Certainly, personal revelation is a somewhat common example of the former. I've known several people who have not the slightest doubt that they heard and/or saw God, or one of his agents. There is no doubt that it is why many people believe what they believe. (Although it gets a bit sticky when different people have had personal revelations that are mutually exclusive.)

But personal revelation cannot possibly be considered to be a reason for anyone else to accept that truth. Aside from being a silly way of trying to convince others, it violates the very definition of personal revelation.

I don't think I've tried to use revelation to convince. Sorry if you got that impression.
Knowing anything is always a personal act. It is from that that confusion has arisen in our time that what one knows personally cannot reflect objective truth. We ultimately depend on our perceptions to know things, and it is always an act of faith, in a sense. But like Thomas Covenant, once we make the act of faith and accept that the world is, for all practical purposes, real (I'm leaving out third series stuff as irrelevant to my point), then we do begin to treat everything that we know objectively and stop the kind of destructive behavior that springs from the sophism of treating existence like a dream - as unreal. "Unbelief" becomes irrelevant, even foolish, as a guide to action.

Accepting revelation made to others is not an attempt at reason, granted. It is something that can only be considered where reason fails or cannot lead us., at which point it becomes a choice: to accept it or not. It is something that reason can no more disprove than prove. It might be worth comparing the reported lives and words of the Apostle Paul and Joseph Smith, who both claimed such revelation. The one is full of deep wisdom and a life dedicated to backing up his words with actions of great, even total personal risk. The other has little to say, by comparison, his actions do not specially impress and he dies in a rather banal attempt to gain ordinary power in this world. The one is extremely convincing. The other is not. The revelation itself is something that reason can't lead you to. But reason can lead you to (a point where you can) see holistic truth in claimed revelation - something that makes the pieces of the puzzle of life that we all see fit together.

1 JOHN 4:16 ...God is love...


...there is not one thing in this life that can mean anything otherwise when the subject is God...








(-is)?

rusmeister wrote:Accepting revelation made to others is not an attempt at reason, granted. It is something that can only be considered where reason fails or cannot lead us., at which point it becomes a choice: to accept it or not. It is something that reason can no more disprove than prove. It might be worth comparing the reported lives and words of the Apostle Paul and Joseph Smith, who both claimed such revelation. The one is full of deep wisdom and a life dedicated to backing up his words with actions of great, even total personal risk. The other has little to say, by comparison, his actions do not specially impress and he dies in a rather banal attempt to gain ordinary power in this world. The one is extremely convincing. The other is not. The revelation itself is something that reason can't lead you to. But reason can lead you to (a point where you can) see holistic truth in claimed revelation - something that makes the pieces of the puzzle of life that we all see fit together.

The thing is, I don't see the need for what you are talking about. Reason cannot tell me whether or not there is a creator. Personal revelation gives you a definite answer. Reason failed me or could not lead me. But personal revelation did not lead you anywhere of any importance. Does it matter whether or not the universe had a cause?

And an argument against your attitude would be that those who attempt to use reason (and science, etc) to learn whether or not the universe had a cause or not have often learned other things about the workings of the universe. The fields of physics and chemistry advance in such ways. And physics and chemistry do have a significant impact on our lives.

Good to have you back, Rus! And to set the record straight, I'm pretty sure I voted for you too:P

rusmeister wrote: Hi, Orlion!

Your comment on purpose is right on - it just seems to me to be obvious.

No argument from me on this. Unfortunately, some things that are obvious to us are not so obvious to others. As a result it is important in philosophical disscussion to cover all your bases (especially since the obvious can often times be questioned and should be questioned in such discussions.... you know what I'm talking about )

I think certain aspects of morality are more clouded than others in various ages. Thus, the society of ancient Rome saw no problem with slavery, the seventeenth century saw no problem with smoking, and our society sees no problem in complete abandonment of sexual morality. The main thing to test that is to follow Lewis's rule and read lots of old books (actually, to never read a new book without reading an old one first) - it really shows up ways in which both we might feel superior (morally) to prior societies, and how they might feel superiority over us.
Grasping this would alleviate the feeling of "arbitrariness". It would show absolutes , different aspects of which different societies bent away from to greater or lesser degrees.

Sometimes I think some change in morals is due to the subjectiveness of those morals (smoking, I believe, is fairly subjective). I'm not sure if Lewis' method would directly produce the right answer, but it would definately help get us there. It provide us with a start as to what is moral, but that would ultimately have to be subject to logic and reason to solidify so as to make sure that cultural views are removed from what we observed.
Also, many times the new can not be properly understood without reference to the old.

Your last comment is rather easy to refute. What you are proposing, basically, is that "omnipotence" should include the ability to do the intrinsically impossible. This is not logical. If I am fat, then it is intrinsically possible for me to also be thin. If God is the very essence of good, then it is logically impossible for Him to also be the essence of evil. This is not a question of "impotence". It is a demand that the logically impossible be possible, which it cannot be. Thus, the whole argument about "God being able to make a rock that's too heavy for Him to lift" is just sheer nonsense, on the level of "What does the color yellow smell like?".
Thus, there is no contradiction between God's omnipotence and free will.

I believe we agree with each other in concept, just not in semitics. If I call something omnipotent, I mean that it is capable of anything. Some sects believe this so as to remove doubt that God could save his creation (afterall, if there are some things God can not do, one of them could be procuring salvation). This view obviously fails to take accountvarious things. For example, what you and I might say is that God is restricted by some laws (in particular, objective laws of morality), however God could be as potent as the strictures of this law allows. This interpretation is attractive to me in that it provides that God can be rational (his actions could be explained in context of this law). Add integrity to one of God's characteristic, and then believers could be confident since God said that he can save his children, that such an event is permitted within law and God is able to do all things under the law.

So, yeah, I think ultimately we only disagree on the terms to be used.

On your point #3, it's worth pointing out that a widespread Orthodox conception is that God IS everywhere, and that for people who have taught themselves to hate Him, that presence, which is a consuming fire, will be hell, whereas those that have learned to love Him (the first and greatest commandment) - and to love all that is good will find it to be heaven. Thus, the spacial conception of "hell is HERE" and "heaven is HERE" in a locational sense may need to be abandoned, or at least, not held as correct and complete expressions of reality.

I do like this interpretation on the location of hell and omnipresence of God... it seems to make more sense then other interpretations.

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:Accepting revelation made to others is not an attempt at reason, granted. It is something that can only be considered where reason fails or cannot lead us., at which point it becomes a choice: to accept it or not. It is something that reason can no more disprove than prove. It might be worth comparing the reported lives and words of the Apostle Paul and Joseph Smith, who both claimed such revelation. The one is full of deep wisdom and a life dedicated to backing up his words with actions of great, even total personal risk. The other has little to say, by comparison, his actions do not specially impress and he dies in a rather banal attempt to gain ordinary power in this world. The one is extremely convincing. The other is not. The revelation itself is something that reason can't lead you to. But reason can lead you to (a point where you can) see holistic truth in claimed revelation - something that makes the pieces of the puzzle of life that we all see fit together.

The thing is, I don't see the need for what you are talking about. Reason cannot tell me whether or not there is a creator. Personal revelation gives you a definite answer. Reason failed me or could not lead me. But personal revelation did not lead you anywhere of any importance. Does it matter whether or not the universe had a cause?

And an argument against your attitude would be that those who attempt to use reason (and science, etc) to learn whether or not the universe had a cause or not have often learned other things about the workings of the universe. The fields of physics and chemistry advance in such ways. And physics and chemistry do have a significant impact on our lives.

Yes, it matters enormously whether our universe had a cause. On this hangs the question of the meaning of our lives.

I wish I could have you talk to the physicists and chemists in my church. (I live in an "academic town" - the closest equivalent for us would be a university town, but it's not the same thing.) If you were proposing any possible dissonance between faith and science, THAT is where you would find it. Yet they manage to do their jobs in institutes, make publications, advancements and discoveries, and go to church and cross and prostrate themselves. Me, I'm a linguist. I have found that language use also significantly (that is, enormously) impacts our lives. So limiting it to the physical sciences is hardly reasonable. It smells of an assumption that only experimental-type knowledge can be admitted as true; that personal experience cannot also reveal objective truth.