So Rautakyy left me a comment in another thread, in part speaking of dictators and the alleged evils of Christendom which he concluded with, “Why did this god not set them right? Is this a sadist god, impotent god, or is it just simply more likely this god does not even exist? Please, answer me this.”
I fully planned to write an earnest and genuine treatise on freewill, suffering, and how evil actually proves the existence of God, but before I could get at it, Rautakyy annoyed me by saying in another thread, “No, submission does not require any strength, nor courage at all. It is quite typical, that physically, emotionally, or in character weaker people submit all the time in the face of strength, be that imaginary, real, or mere presentation of strength.”
Okay Rautakyy, than I double dare you right now. If submission is so easy, if it requires no courage or strength, than surrender all to Jesus Christ. Ask Him to forgive you for your sins and to come into your heart. Put your very life in his hands and trust Him completely. Do it, it will be the best thing you’ve ever done.
My treatise is all but forgotten because I am reminded once again that people can only see what they chose to see. Rautakyy apparently perceives me as cowardly, emotionally weak, typical, and prone to surrender to anyone and anything I perceive as stronger. A submissive doormat, a pushover. Actually, that’s somewhat funny! I write about submission to Jesus Christ, about our relationship, and also about submission in marriage due to the very fact that given my character, any form of submission within me at all, is a Divine miracle. I don’t surrender in the face of strength, not one little bit. I am absolutely fearless. Also dumber than a box of rocks, but that’s a whole other story.
Submission actually required more strength and courage than I even thought possible. Sometimes it still does.
You’ve pegged me all wrong Rautakyy, so there’s a good chance that your perceptions of God are all wrong, too. I mean, I’m just a human woman and a rather transparent one at that, and you’ve gone and misjudged me. What makes you think you’re now worthy to judge God? Impotent and sadistical? Heck, you think I’m weak! No offense buddy, but I think you’ve just called your own perceptions of reality into question.
I’ll keep it simple. We aren’t even qualified to define “evil.” By what measurement? What standard of comparison are we using here? Outside the context of God, “evil” is simply anything that does not benefit me immediately, while “good” is anything that does. There is no “good and evil” outside the context of God, there is only my will to power versus the will of others, and might makes right.
To call something evil is to pass a moral judgment. To pass a moral judgment is to acknowledge there is a universal law. A universal law cannot exist without a Universal Lawmaker.
The truth is that evil is actually meassured by how far it strays from what is Holy and Pure, what some call Truth and Beauty, God Himself. Evil can only be defined as the things to be found far from Him. If you recognize that evil exists, than you must recognize that God exists, too. Otherwise, the definition of your “good” is nothing more than emotionalism and sentimentality to the things we desire.
If God does not exist, than an objective standard to meassure moralty does not exist, therefore evil does not exist either. Since evil now no longer exists, you no longer have a foundational basis in which to declare certain events “sadistic and evil.” In the absence of God, what human beings do to one another is of no more importance than chimps ripping one another apart in the forest or anteaters sucking the inhabitants out of a mound.
If submissison were so easy, so typical Rautakyy, you would have done it by now. The fact is, it isn’t so easy at all becasue our own pride and arrogance often blind us to the truth.
See, there's this thing called biology... 
Could there really be any such thing as horrifying wickedness [if there were no God]? I don’t see how there can be such a thing only if there is a way that rational creatures are supposed to live, obliged to live. . . . A [purely naturalistic] way of looking at the world has no place for genuine moral obligation of any sort . . . and thus no way to say there is such a thing as genuine and appalling wickedness. Accordingly, if you think there really is such a thing as horrifying wickedness ( . . . and not just an illusion of some sort), then you have a powerful . . . argument [for the existence of God]
Alvin Platinga
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah, good one!
“A [purely naturalistic] way of looking at the world has no place for genuine moral obligation of any sort.”
Very true. We can look about at the natural world and observe that morality just doesn’t exist in that context at all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
He’s leaning rather hard on his adjectives in that argument.
LikeLike
Ooooo, oooooooo, yes, yes, absolutely. I love, love, love this logic – A universal law must have a universal lawmaker – absolutely. To me that is self-evident and you would be surprised how many would argue that is not true – it drives me nuts, nuts, nuts. Anything that varies consistently and with form from a zero energy point must be acted on by a force in order to do so. And in so doing creates an equal and opposite state. So, the existence of evil automatically implies the existence of God and Good. No other logic needed. It is like pulling back on one of those steel balls mounted by strings in a frame. The ball cannot move from rest without a force acting on it and as soon as it is released, it will fire off though the rest position and continue as far past as it was in the other direction.
In quantum physics there are these strange little particles called spin pairs. They are separate and distinct particles that have opposite spins (literally – the normal definition of spin, as in turning around and around). Whichever way one is spinning the other is ALWAYS spinning the opposite. Physicists have been able with particle accelerators to separate these puppies as far as a mile apart and when they change the spin on one, the spin on the other changes simultaneously. Now I’m talking periods of time in femtoseconds – and they are always identically reversed. This speed of communication is so fast that it measures as simultaneous – breaking the speed of light easily. This is not supposed to be possible and yet it happens every time.
Much as the existence of evil – find a particle of a spin pair and there is always a second out there and it is always spinning the opposite of the one you have and a force exists that keeps it that way ALWAYS.. Find evil and there is good and a force that keeps them apart. To me it is self-evident and yet many do not agree.
Oh, one thing I would like to mention IB is that you categorized evil as not close to god. I would sort of agree – but instead of distance defining evil, I would say direction (a vector) defines evil – the faster it moves away from God the more evil it is. To me the most insidious evil is that which is clearly next to and assumed to be with God and yet is headed away in a perpendicular vector. Jesus seems to agree as he says that to harm a little one in His name , one would might as well hang a millstone around their neck and jump in the pond. Quite honestly IB, that definition of greater evil as that which is closest to God and moving away fastest – means that religious groups who harm others in God’s name are the worst evil. I think that difference (direction versus distance) has created a lot of confusion with followers.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I love this comment!. I haven’t heard much about spin pairs, but that’s it exactly.
I think you may be quite right about direction, a vector, defining evil rather than “distance.” That’s a really good point. Ha! I’ve always been spatially challenged, so I am not surprised I missed that one. The worst kind of evil really is that which is perceived to be of God, but isn’t, and yes, I think we can find quite a bit of scriptural support for that idea. That one actually scares me, the thought of anyone doing evil and claiming it’s from God. That’s a major no no, something I am keenly aware of all the time.
Direction versus distance, very good point, Paul. And you are correct, that confusion has done a lot of harm in the world.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Okay Rautakyy, than I double dare you right now. If submission is so easy, if it requires no courage or strength, than surrender all to Jesus Christ. Ask Him to forgive you for your sins and to come into your heart. Put your very life in his hands and trust Him completely. Do it, it will be the best thing you’ve ever done.”
Over the fence for sure IB. Bravo
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well, well. “Alledged evils of Christendom”. How do you mean “alledged”? The research of history is a fine and methodical art of science. Science is the best and most reliable method we have on knowing what ever is true. So, you never actually answered me to the question you quoted on the top of this post, now did you? Why? I hope this entire post is not just about you evading the question?
But if you choose to actually try to answer my actual question, do not bother with the moot freewill argument. The entire notion of free will somehow explaining the evil an alledgedly benevolent god would allow, or even commit is silly, if you at the same time believe people are going to have any freedom at all in the alledged afterlife. If freedom requires the existance of evil, then there either is no freedom in them heavens, or evil lurks there just as much as it does down here in the real world.
Existance of evil = harmfull behaviour of humans, does not prove, or even yeild any evidence about the existance of any particular god concept as imagined by human beings. That is just silly. Humans are a species of animals, animals have behaviorial surivival traits that tend to mutate both biologically and socially. Mutation is the cause of evolution. All of these things can be wittnessed in the real material world unlike unnatural personifications of evil or benevolece.
If you think further, I do expect you shall notice, that your “dare” is a bit childish for your own capacity. It is on the same level, as if someone dared you to submit to Allah. Do you believe Allah exists? Do you have compelling evidence that Allah exists? If not, how could you submit to Allah? What sort of strength would that require? Do you think it took any strength from the people who were born in Islamic countries to submit to Allah? What sort of courage did it take from people in Nazi ruled Germany to submit to Hitler? What sort of courage would it take you to submit to Allah, Juppiter, Odin, or Ganesha? How could you evaluate wether any of them are moral, or even real, if you begin by submission to their existance and morals?
Have you “chosen” to see me as seeing you as “as cowardly, emotionally weak, typical, and prone to surrender to anyone and anything I perceive as stronger”? I do not see you like that at all and I wonder how you came to the conclusion that I think you are any of those things? Nor did I even hint at any point, that you were “submissive doormat, a pushover”. What I said was that you were wrong in your claim that submission requires strength, when that is not at all true. Submission does not require any strength as we can wittness by observing the fact that weak people submit to their strongers all the time. I did not by any means say at any point that all people who submit to something are necessarily weak. I do not know you well enough to make that judgement about you, but it makes me wonder why did your subconscious conjure up this personal emotional outrage, as if you had not at all read what I wrote? Is it you yourself, who doubts your own motives or the truth value of the claim, or is this all a too well rehearsed evasion tactic, or what?
If we “aren’t even qualified to define evil”, then we are not qualified to define good, or benevolence either. Those words have just lost their meaning to us. If we simply submit to an authority to judge good and evil for us, we simply become unable to make moral judgement and our choises no longer are even moral. But in the real world we are able to define evil, good and benevolence and we do it all the time. You do it and I do it. Even a religious person who has submitted their own will to the alledged will of a god constantly makes the moral calls wether this or that direct command, parabel, metaphor, or even a hint in some holy scripture or tradition is actually good or not. How do they do this? You yourself once said something on the lines of, that the Psalm: 137:9 is about a revenge fantasy of a sad individual, rather than some virtue described by your god. You made a moral judgement call on the text itself. By what virtue are you supposed to know this Psalm was not divinely inspired?
You wrote: “Submission actually required more strength and courage than I even thought possible. Sometimes it still does.” Now to me it seems you have confused the concepts of either submission or strength with something else, because what you wrote does not make any sense at all. Or perhaps you can explain it, rather than just repeat the notion.
You also wrote: “Rautakyy, so there’s a good chance that your perceptions of God are all wrong, too.” Agreed. My perceptions of any gods might be all wrong too. In a billion ways, because we really do not know anything about any gods. Do we? All we have are obvious human cultural constructs about claims about divinity, supernatural and gods. But if I am mistaken and there is a god that would want me to accept it, is it not logical that the responsibility between the two of us belongs to that god to communicate to me, rather that I randomly choose one of the god concepts offered to me by human cultural heritage, submit to it and then as a result find it all not just real, but also moral? If an adult is hiding behind a curtain and a wounded child comes to the room, is it the responsibility of the wounded child to go look for this adult to help her/him, or is it the responsibility of the adult to stop her/his hide and seek to appear to help the child – even if the child does not ask for help from the curtains? Make a moral judgement call on my metaphor. I know you can and you should not submit yourself to any authority to do the right thing.
You asked: “What makes you think you’re now worthy to judge God?” Well either your god made me able to make moral judgement or he did not. Wich do you think is more likely and if he chose to make me not able to make moral judgement about alledged gods, can you honestly call such a god moral? Further more, if I am unable to make moral calls on alledged gods, how could I even be expected to find the right true god from among all the false gods? By accident of birth into a specific religous culture like most people have chosen their gods? Is the choise totally random, or is there a process of choise involved, and is that in any way a moral choise?
Morals is part of a method of ethics to evaluating harmfull, or potentially harmfull human behaviour from unharmfull and beneficial behaviour. We do it by comparing short AND long term reprecussions of our potential actions. Why on earth would it require us to only look for some short term satisfaction, if there were no universal beings, that have set some arbitrary sets of rules for us to follow? I bet you are fully capable of making long term judgement and evaluation of your actions without comparing them to some arbitrary set of rules. I know I am and I can proudly say it without any hubris. To me true hubris would be in this issue to declare that one’s own intuition, subconscious and as such conscience is directly tapped into some final arbitrator entity who has alledgedly designed and created the universe and by the owners right of might makes right declares through such obscure method as some ancient book (among dozens of similar pamphlets with equally revealing demands of blind faith) so obviously written by ignoramuses some arbitrary sets of rules of obvious Tribal moralism.
You asserted: “To pass a moral judgment is to acknowledge there is a universal law. A universal law cannot exist without a Universal Lawmaker.” A mighty leap from some imaginably best possible system to a androphomorphic system designer. Meanwhile in reality, to pass moral judgement is to recognize what is known about reality and name potentially desirable and undesirable results of actions between social entities such as us humans.
Chimpanzees by the way have a moral system too. They too evaluate potential harm and benefits all the time. Much like with us it is a survival trait of social animals. They have different standards and their planning may not be as far reaching as ours as their braincapacity is not equal to ours. But we are able to make very long term evaluation and judgement and thus our responsibility is greater. Your comparrison to chimps just shows how we have more responsibility as our capacity is greater. Just like a god would have if there existed one. But we do not know wether one exists or not, because the method to define wether something – anything at all – exists is not by submitting ourselves to the notion, that it does, or by blind religious faith. We are better equipped than that, you and I and as we live in this time and age we should be better informed also to know, that gods are typical folklore elements of human imagination to fill in gaps in human knowledge, rather than any real knowledge at all.
Our brain capacity for morals as we humans understand it, sets us responsible to actually demand evidence for wild stories before submitting ourselves to the authority of some other humans who tell us there are infact gods, and that these gods want us to give money, do things we then morally judge to be good, or bad. Remember, the Islamist suicide bomber has submitted to the authority of a notion that a god demands them to kill themselves and others. How should that suicide bomber know that what he is engaged in is evil? By evaluating actual harm and benefit of his actions, or by having blind faith and submission to the creator of the universe – Allah?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“If you think further, I do expect you shall notice, that your “dare” is a bit childish for your own capacity.”
Your attempts to dismiss my invitation do seem to speak to the truth of what I have said, submission requires great strength and courage and really isn’t such an easy thing after all.
LikeLike
Wow, Rautakky, wow…
LikeLike
I not sure that your “dare” is an accurate way to assess if submission requires courage or not. I’m not sure that a dismissal of your invitation tells us what you think it tells us.
The problem is that before one could show “courage” by submitting to a particular belief system, wouldn’t it be necessary to first believe in the thing that one is submitting to? If you simply don’t believe that something is true, then the absence of submission has little to do with whether or not submission requires courage. Daring someone to submit to something they don’t believe doesn’t really tell us very much about submission and courage.
For example, I could dare you (IB) to submit to Allah and his prophet Mohammad, because it takes real courage to submit. You would, of course, dismiss my invitation.
If you dismiss my invitation, could we conclude that you lack courage or that this tells us that submission requires strength and courage? Maybe your dismissal of the dare simply isn’t particularly relevant to the question of any relationship between submission and strength and courage. Maybe it’s as simple as the fact that you don’t believe that Islam offers Truth.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The problem is that before one could show “courage” by submitting to a particular belief system, wouldn’t it be necessary to first believe in the thing that one is submitting to?”
No. It’s called a leap of faith for a reason.
LikeLike
So you would submit to something that you don’t believe in? You would submit to something that you believe is false?
LikeLike
“So you would submit to something that you don’t believe in?”
People submit to things they don’t believe in all the time. It often takes trust, courage, strength.
LikeLike
Why would you submit to something you don’t believe in?
This strikes me as a good way to end up submitting to something by random chance. I’m not sure that “courage” is the word that applies here.
LikeLike
“I’m not sure that “courage” is the word that applies here.”
Yes, so I’ve already heard. You guys are incredibly redundant.
LikeLike
Redundant? How so?
Anyway, you didn’t really address the question. Why would you submit to something that you don’t believe in? Isn’t this a good way to end up submitting to something by random chance?
LikeLike
“Redundant? How so?”
You’re in a thread in which I address the ridiculous notion that “submission does not require any strength, nor courage at all.” Both you and Rautakyy have simply repeated the allegation.
Let’s try something else. Your redundancy is boring me. Try submitting to Jesus Christ and than come back and I’ll let you explain how submission is an act of the weak who lack courage.
LikeLike
I understand what you are addressing. I was specifically responding to one of the ways in which you attempted to address the “allegation.” This is not just repeating the allegation. It’s a specific response to your specific response.
So rather than follow your point to where it leads (you would submit to something you don’t believe, you would submit to something by random chance), you play the “boring card.” Well, that one way to avoid answering the question. And speaking of redundant, it’s a card I’ve seen many times.
As I’ve explained, your “dare” is not a particularly effective way to demonstrate a relationship between courage, strength and submission. But may I suggest that you try submitting to Allah, and then I’ll let you explain how submission is an act of courage.
LikeLike
“But may I suggest that you try submitting to Allah..”
May I suggest you try NOT submitting to Allah when the men with swords show up?
Your particular problem, and Rautakyy’s too, is that neither one of you can equate courage and strength with anything but rebellion and defiance. You can only perceive submission as unwilling surrender to an unlawful and unethical power.
My dare is effective and it still stands. You’re trying to atheism-splain faith to me and you’re failing miserably because you have no experience with what you are trying to speak of.
LikeLike
Still no answers to my questions. So, maybe I’m not the only one who is failing.
You are wrong about “my particular problem.” You’ve generalized far beyond the specific issue that I was addressing, and you’ve put a lot of words in my mouth that I did not speak. You are drawing broad conclusion when all I was doing was addressing your use of “The Dare” to try to support a conclusion that was not, in fact, supported by The Dare. That’s all I was addressing here. The Dare.
I’ve explained why refusing your “invitation” tells us little about the correlation between courage/strength and submission. Your invitation is just not relevant to the subject. One can refuse such “invitations” simply out of disbelief, independent of any questions about the courage required to submit.
You refuse my invitation to submit the invitation to submit to Allah simply out of disbelief. Your refusal to submit to Allah has little to do with whether or not it takes courage to submit to Allah. I have no doubt that you are filled with courage, and yet you refuse to submit to Allah. Your refusal to submit tells us little about whether or not it take strength to submit. You just don’t believe that Islam offers Truth. So you don’t accept invitations to submit to Allah. Very simple.
One doesn’t need experience with faith to understand that The Dare fails to do what you say it does (and you don’t have a clue about my experience with faith). All you have to do is consider why you do not submit to Allah.
Or would you like to demonstrate your courage by submitting to Allah after all? As long as you are one who submits without belief, why not try Allah?
LikeLiked by 1 person
@David, there seems to be no answer to any of my questions either. Do you think it would really take such an overwhelming amount of “courage and strengh” from Insanitybytes22 to try to answer my or your questions? Instead what we get is this endless evasion. Why? Perhaps, because she is affraid of what might lie at the end of the logical path of answering those questions? A disappointment at the lack of evidence for there really being any good reasons to expect a “benevolent” creator having chosen her to have a positive experience in some form of an afterlife? Or something else?
@Insanitybytes22, you wrote:”People submit to things they don’t believe in all the time. It often takes trust, courage, strength.”
Could you give an example of what you mean? Now, even if you could give an actual example of that, it would still not mean that submission in itself takes any courage nor strength at all. Would it? Does not having actual trust in someone mean you really do not need to have any strength to rely upon them? If your trust on someone – be it god or man – is so stretched and thin that it takes strength and courage, you do not actually trust them, you just pretend to trust them.
Perhaps, I can see what you mean by needing strenth and courage specifically to take the leap of faith. Do you mean something on the lines, that it was like stepping into a dark room, not knowing what was in there? Such a leap must have taken courage and strength, and you equate this to submitting yourself to trust your god to protect you on the way in from any invisible dangers. But not all submission is like that at all. Is it? Infact most often submission has nothing at all to do with such leaps of faith and even when it is, the leap of faith is not a virtue such as courage. A leap of faith may lead you into very dark places, like becoming an Islamist for example. Is this not how and where Islamists come from – leaps fo faith? Altough courage is a virtue it sometimes leads people to do bad or badly informed descisions. Does it not? In comparrison to trying to light the room first instead of stepping in with trust to the unknowable (such as gods) is the more sane solution. The fact that you have taken the step, and while you are standing in the dark room nothing in the dark has yet harmed you, does not mean there was someone who protected you. It might as well mean there was nothing dangerous in the room in the first place, or that you simply have not yet encountered what might harm you in there. The question here is why did you need to take that leap in the first place? Why would I want to step into the same dark room with you? I am fine outside thank you very much. Does your god favour the courageous and strong over the weak? Are the weak who dare not take the leap of faith somehow less worthy in the eyes of your god, or even worthy of eternal damnation and torment, like so often Christians keep telling us? Or is that just a ruse to get people to step into the darkness for a fear of something even more scary than the dark room?
When you said: “May I suggest you try NOT submitting to Allah when the men with swords show up?” Is that not a perfect example of submission not needing much strength or any courage at all, if a person submits to threats of violence (be those threats real like swords, or imaginary like hell)? If my life was at stake, I surely would submit to Allah, would you not? Why not? Because you find the threat of the swords less threatening, than the threat of not getting to the afterlife your particular brand of god has promised you for submission? Have you been coerced to take the leap of faith? Would it not take more courage in that situation not to submit, than to submit? Or is that the reason why you submitted to your particular god, because you were affraid of death and damnation? Did you sell your integrity to buy a chance to have a second life in them heavens where no evil, nor obviously free will exist? Did you not notice, that in such a bargain, you also have sold part of your humanity in accepting the tribal moralism, in the form of a notion, that somehow some people are more deserving in the eyes of your god – so much so, that they get have an eternal life while others perish, or even suffer infinetly for finite thought crimes, such as disbelief in a particular human construction of religion?
You wrote: “Your particular problem, and Rautakyy’s too, is that neither one of you can equate courage and strength with anything but rebellion and defiance. You can only perceive submission as unwilling surrender to an unlawful and unethical power.” Speaking for myself, as I really do not know David, though for so far I have every reason to think he is an upstanding guy, there is much courage in defending order and law, as their defence may need one to stand for what one sees as justified and as sometimes the person who is right is the underdog in face of violence. I do not think myself as especially courageous or strong – that is not my brand of hubris at all. However, I have stood up for what is right in face of violence, paid a personal price and I still am part of the army reserve of my country ready to my duty to my loved ones, my own pride, my nation and the principle of people having the right to choose who governs us.
You also declared: “You’re trying to atheism-splain faith to me and you’re failing miserably because you have no experience with what you are trying to speak of.” I admit to fail. Obviously you have no clue as to what David and I are talking about. Perhaps it is your brand of hubris that makes you only see what you chose to see, because in admitting your dare was very poorly formed and as such doomed to fail miserably, you might have to also try to answer my other questions. Remember the original one you promised me this post would be all about?
I also admit that I personally have no experience with what I am trying to speak of. Personal experience is not required from a sapient entity to evaluate and form an informed opinion. I have the etic view on religious behaviour just as you yourself have an emic view on it. You have previously claimed to have once had the etic view also. Now, I employ you to combine your two views and answer my questions finally instead of redundantly repeating your silly dare, that is on the level of you asking us to submitting to Allah. Are you really not able to understand this parable, this metaphor, this comparrison?
What I refuse to admit is that either I or David have been redundant in any way. You clearly have failed to answer any of our questions. Instead you have put up this childish dare, that means nothing to us, and over and over again refuse to actually address our comparative dismissal of it.
LikeLike
Pingback: My Article Read (5-16-2016) (5-17-2016) – My Daily Musing
Pingback: My Article Read (5-16/17-2016) bylafayetteangel – Br Andrew's Muses
Off topic. IB, you said, “I am absolutely fearless. Also dumber than a box of rocks, but that’s a whole other story.” Reminded me of an article I read today which my nephew wrote for The Federalist. It’s entitled “Trump Supporters Aren’t Stupid. They’re Foolish,” and the introductory section deals with the subject of stupid. I think it’s quite good. Here’s a sample:
Here’s the link to the entire article – http://thefederalist.com/2016/05/18/trump-supporters-arent-stupid-theyre-foolish/
Becky
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Rebecca LuElla Miller, a nice quote – though a bit off topic as you noted yourself.
In addition, I would say that all people are stupid on some things and intelligent on other things.
It sometimes happens, that we forget we are talking about issues and tie those issues too close to ourselves and our identities. I think, that this time, in this particular topic post, that is what happened to our gracious hostess. I never meant to attack her persona, yet instead she stopped listening what I was saying and made it all a personal issue – even to the point of issuing challenges. This is in many ways my fault. As religion is not a personal issue to me, since I have none, I frequently forget, that questioning it may imply to the religious person, that I am infact questioning the very base of their identity.
I am unapologetic, because I seriously think questioning poorly based beliefs (wich is what they are when they are based on a leap of blind faith). If there are no gods, it would be good for humanity to realize that much and start dealing with the real problems of the world and not expecting any unnatural help. On the other hand, if there is a god, who also happens to be “benevolent” who evaluates us on the level of belief we have on that god, then surely that god appriciates the efforts any person makes to also have rational reasons for their faith, to wich I am only inciting people. Would a benevolent god simply reward for intellectual laziness of just blindly believing in the cultural heritage of each and everyone of us, who have happened to have been born into the right family and creed? Sadly, that is how most people “choose” what particular gods to believe in. Is it not?
The magnificense of the idea of democracy lies much in the plurality of our varying skill sets and understanding. Democracy is in no way in contradiction to meritocracy, in wich we rely on experts to be best at what they do. A functioning and ethical democracy also requires ever better education, ever better quality of information and research of reality around us – as in scientific methodology and less reliance on metaphysical guess work. Am I right, or am I right? 😉
LikeLike
Rautakky, I don’t know the history behind your exchange with IB, so I can’t speak to that, but I do think I can say with some confidence, she is not put out because you “questioned her religion.”
Since I share her faith in the risen Christ, I can also say what we believe is not “poorly based.” IB does talk from time to time about a leap of faith, but I don’t remember her ever referring to it as “blind.” That tends to be the way atheists refer to faith, not the way Christians do. We more often than not understand faith to be what the Apostle Paul said: “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”
On this cloudy morning, I had the assurance the sun would come out, if not this afternoon or tomorrow or the next day, then some day soon. I had the conviction the sun is still there, even though I couldn’t see it. In the same way, we have ample reason to be assured that God is Who He says He is. We have assurance of what He revealed, although we ourselves only see a glimpse, as through a darkened mirror.
Your ideas about God and reward are also ideas from atheism, not from fact. God is not dispensing brownie points or handing out bonuses as some scout master or some CEO would. He is God. His standard is perfection. So, surprise, surprise, we all fail. We can’t do anything to earn rewards because whatever good we do is only what is expected, and in total, we still fall short of the standard. That’s why we need a Savior.
While I agree with you that democracy requires even better education (is this perhaps why so few people vote in the US?), I don’t think it has anything to do with relying on the scientific method more than on metaphysics. I find the idea that we should ignore one phase of reality to be frightening. Such a way of governing would be certainly to do so from ignorance. It would be like teaching a mechanic all about what makes a car work but then to ignore the things that make for a good driver.
Ethics and morality and character may not be quantifiable scientific properties, but they are real and equally, if not much more, important than the science that undergirds the physical aspects of our world.
Becky
LikeLiked by 4 people
So, in one paragraph, you say that we only see a glimpse of God as though through a darkened mirror.
And then in the next paragraph, you proceed to tell us all about the nature of God. Now you seem to know a great deal about God, and speak with great confidence about God. Now you have the facts. So much for glimpses and darkened mirrors.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Rebecca LuElla Miller, I respect you not wanting to comment the discussion between me and Insanitybytes22. I would however be relieved to hear it from herself, if that was not what so upset her. Yet, if it was not, then I have hard time even trying to guess, what it was that she took so personally, that she thought I was calling her “submissive doormat, a pushover”, since I did not say anything at all to that effect. Together with the childish dare, she presented it seems just as an evasion tactic to a subject she was not ready to handle. I guess that would explain it just as well and that much I can understand.
I see, that you think you have every reason to believe and of course if a person believes they do think their reasons are good enough for them. However, in my evaluation for a person does not need to make any leaps to faith if their faith is not blind. As in your example of the sun, the sun is somthing visible, observable, measurable and I have not only the continous experience of it eventually appearing from the clouds during my lifetime, but I also understand enough of the physics of the Earths atmosphere and planetary systems to reconcile my belief in that the sun eventually always appears from the clouds. Yet, in my experience none of this applies to any gods and I have not met convincing evidence, that anyone has anything to compare to. I am not calling you a liar, mind you, I am merely convinced that because of your particular cultural heritage you are mistaken.
Now I might be mistaken just as well because of my cultural heritage, but if you are right and I am wrong, I shall be eternally tormented for not having found the particular god, while you get to spend an eternity in bliss, where you are not the least bothered by my pain. If on the other hand I am right and you are wrong both of us may live fruitfull and purposefull lives and leave something worth while as a cultural heritage to the coming generations.
I agree that my opinions of any gods are not based on facts. Because we really know nothing factual at all about any gods. Do we? We know what men have said and written for ages about a number of gods. All of those claims seem to have one thing in common, wich is total unverifiability. If the standard of your god is perfection, then why did he create imperfect beings such as you and I? Is he not perfect himself? A truly perfect entity requiring perfection would not create anything imperfect, that would be totally countereffective.
Surely you must be right, if there is a god whose standard is perfection who wants to save us from our own imperfection such a god would not demand us to join any culturally relative religious movement and divide us “brownie points” according to that. That would be just silly. Especially so, since most people only join religions by being born, inculturated and often indoctrinated to their culturally relative religions. Yet, that is what religions, not so much atheism, tell us how gods are supposed to operate. Why?
The level of education might be connected to the level of voting. For example because if a large portion of the population has poor education they are more supseptible to advertisements and to the politics of fear. Fear is more effective incentive to the poorly educated, because they have less tools to recognize actual threats from imaginary ones. This in turn may cause a large portion of a population to feel that in the end the voting is controlled by those who can afford to advertize and dare to appeal to more or less imaginary threats, that they supposedly are defending the nation from. In Europe we have seen the rise of political populism during the recent decade or so. It may even have increased temporarily the voting, but it has no tendency to solve the problems and when the populist gains political leadership position he knows how woulnerable he is to the same sort of tactics, so often moves to decrease the democracy of the society just to consolidate his new position all too aware that he can not provide solutions to the problems he so lightly made promises of repairing. That has obviously happened in for example Poland and Hungary.
Your analogy about the mechanic and the driving lessons is good, but I see metaphysics more like as if the mechanic is being taught guesses on what to do if the car one day could grow wings and fly to some unnatural imaginary world like Narnia. The things that make a good driver are in no way metaphysical, rather they are part of the same reality as the engine and the mechanic herself. For example, if the mechanic drives over someone, that happened in the real material world to a real material person and the mechanic surely would not want that to happen to herself, nor to anyone she loved and that is why the mechanic needs to be a good driver, not to satisfy some juju-spirit from her cultural heritage invented in times before the car or the engine…
This far the study of metaphysics is pretty much the study of nothing. It is guesswork based on mere assumptions. Morality and ethics may be difficult to “quantify”, yet they are the properties of physical entities in a physical universe and as such are well within the reach of scientific method. Morality and ethics are both phenomenons clearly evaluated within the cause and effect in this very real and material world. This far science is the only method we have of having any at all logically reliable information about anything at all.
LikeLike
David, it may seem like I’m saying we know a lot about God. We do know what He’s revealed, but that’s the tip of the iceberg, which is a very good metaphor, though it’s become a cliche. I suppose another would be the ocean itself. We see the waves from shore, but those who dive below the surface see an entire underwater world. God is like that. He shows us Himself, as much as we are able to comprehend in the here and now, but one day we will see Him face to face and know Him with the same intimacy that He Who knows all things, knows us.
Becky
LikeLiked by 2 people
rautakyy, thanks for your response. From what you said, it sounds like you only believe that what is physical is real. Are emotions not real, then? Or what about a sense of right and wrong? In fact, do right and wrong exist?
If you dismiss all of this, then I understand why you don’t believe in God, despite the abundant evidence to support His existence. But if you accept that there’s a part of us—which we sometimes refer to as the human spirit—which the physical can’t account for, then you are acknowledging that there is more to life than the physical. Ought there not be some way of explaining its existence and learning to nurture it and even explore its nature? That’s what religions do. Some are right and some are wrong, the same way that some beliefs about the physical world are right and some are wrong.
Becky
LikeLiked by 3 people
Becky, I understand what you are saying, but I’m not sure it solves the problem.
I think a more accurate analogy might be one in which there is a thousand piece jigsaw puzzle, and you hold just a single piece. The box is missing, but nevertheless, many will make grand pronouncements about what the entire picture looks like, often with very great certainty. Oh boy, do people like to talk about what picture is on the box. Now, sure, the single piece reveals a little something, like maybe a few splotches of color. But if one attempts to draw any conclusions about the big picture based on this single piece, then I would expect a very high error rate.
I hear tell that God is perfect or that God is all good or all loving or whatever. Everyone is eager to tell me all about God, and most feel quite confident about what they are saying. But then I hear about darkened mirrors and tips of icebergs, especially when one is confronted with obvious contradictions and unsolvable theological paradoxes and dilemmas. Then it suddenly becomes very convenient to talk of mysteries and the unknowable mind of God.
Well, you can’t have both ways.
For example, if God has only revealed a tiny bit of his nature, how do you know that God is perfect or loving or anything else for that matter? How can you make this prouncement or claim that you have an accurate revelations when you only have a tiny piece of the big picture? The part of the puzzle that is missing might show God to be a mean, nasty and deceptive son of gun. Maybe God showed you a little bit to make you think that God is loving when, in fact, God is the most malevolent being in the universe. You just can’t tell from the available data.
Who know what lies beneath the waves? Given what we don’t know, maybe one should careful about claiming to have revelations or when drawing conclusions from a single puzzle piece. All we really know is that we don’t know.
LikeLike
I understand what you’re saying, David. But here’s the problem with your analogy (which I like very much as a whole), you’re the one who decided you only have one piece of the puzzle. What’s closer to the truth is that we have all the edge pieces and a good many of the pieces adjacent to them. To leave that image for the moment, the reality is God can only be known if He reveals Himself. An ant, for an example, isn’t going to know a human foot from a rock. A human mind is beyond the comprehension of an ant. But what if we had the ability to “incarnate” and become an ant ourselves. As an ant, we tell the other ants what humans are like and that we actually do exist. Then the ant could know about humans.
In the same way, God transcends us, but He wants us to know Him (as we actually once did know Him). So He imprinted His character on creation, He sent messengers, He chose a people group to live in relationship with Him, He gave written records of His very words, and He also came in the form of man so we could know exactly what God is like.
In essence, God revealed Himself to us as completely as we can understand. But there simply are things about the Infinite that a finite mind can’t get. There’s things about immortality that the mortal won’t grasp. Same with sinners trying to understand perfect goodness or fallible trying to understand omnipotence. We’re left with questions because God’s character is beyond our realm of activity. We understand the words, but we only see these qualities in one place—in God.
So you ask, how do we know that more of God won’t reveal that He isn’t good after all. That’s a good question, worth thinking about. I submit that His goodness is “one of the puzzle pieces we have,” but it’s important to see if it does in fact fit with the others. There are books that deal with this kind of stuff, so I’m not going to try and give a one-off answer. Suffice it to say, the evil we have in this world seems to come from human beings rather than from nature. So if you think about the world and what God revealed, that He said what He created was good, that Man was the one who stepped away from Him and corrupted his own nature which in turn is affecting all the rest, it fits the facts we see around us.
Becky
LikeLiked by 2 people
Footnote: IB, I sincerely appreciate your willingness to allow conversations such as this at your blog site.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Rebecca LuElla Miller, I appriciate, your honest and much more compact answers, than I seem to be able to achieve. 😉
Yes, I do think all that we can actually verify to exist is physical. Infact we do not have any reliable means to verify anything other than what is physical, so assuming something might be would to me be quite counterproductive. Emotions have been found to be very much real and indeed physical. They are neurochemical reactions that happen in the brains and even in the lesser neurosystems of all of us animals. This is not even very new knowledge speaking in human terms. Yes, there are some people who still hold that animals have no feelings, but if you ever had a pet, you know animals do indeed experience feelings from the more complex feelings of us mammals to even the more instinctive reactions of lizards and even for example fish.
Right and wrong exist in our actions in the physical world – where else? Anything outside the physical world is not really observable. Right and wrong exist in the reprecussions of our actions, even the possible concievable reprecussions of our actions and they are very material indeed as are our physical brains in wich the physical electrochemical brainfunctions happen when we evaluate those actions. It is all very physical when through the logical analysis tools of ethics, or through our intuitive subconscious rapid reaction system relying on our our moral understanding of intuition we so often refer to as our conscience, or sometimes even through pure survival instinct, evaluate both the possible and already happened reprecussions of our actions.
So you see, I think the physical can account for the human spirit quite adequately. “Spirit” in this sense is just a metaphor for reality and does not really refer to any unnatural ability human might have. We are physical beings with physical brains just a little different from our closest relatives in what we like to call the animal kingdom. It is our hubris and ignorance at work when we see ourselves special in the sense, we posses something “super natural” within ourselves. Yes, we are different to other animals, in the sense that we have greater endurance than most and better perspiratory ability and in that our brain makes us more adept at contemplating the future to do the logical analysis, instead of just leaning on our intuitional behaviour models and instinctive behaviour. That ability to think logic further than other animals on this planet has made it possible for us to use tools and by the power of tools to reach even the orbit and the moon of our planet, or even – sadly so – destroy all life on this planet, if we so choose, or if we choose not to think about the reprecussions of our actions. This ability also enables us to be responsible for the long term reprecussions of our actions.
I agree with your assesment on the role of varying religions in human cultures to a degree. They are cultural constructs to nurture the human spirit, or in other words, human behaviour as a social phenomenon. They are also attempts to explain the human nature, and our relationship with the observable surrounding material universe, from times when people had no notion of brainchemistry and when the art of logic was taking baby steps while the road was paved with all sorts of unfounded and superstitious beliefs. Like all ideologies all religions have been abused by the morally corrupt, overtly selfish and as such often powerhungry. Often they are built on some authoritarian social model we obviously have inherited from some of our ape ancestry and as such they are – as social models go – indeed very woulnerable to such abuse. Ultimately religions however are all mere guesses on the human spirit, nature of the universe and attempts to fill in the gaps of our knowledge. Logic dictates however, that we should not jump to conclusions without information and any leaps of faith are, after all, leaping to conclusions. Accepting mystery as a mystery is fine, while accepting a mysterious explanation to what we do not know is a fallacy.
For example, for thousands of years dreams were considered to be messages from some netherworlds, from the ancestor spirits, or other sort of unnatural entities beyond the physical world, because we had no means to account for them. Today – through the scientific method – we know they are the natural material renewal of our electrochemical brainfunctions. We can understand why the past generations had a tradition of misconception about them, as we can not know what we do not know. However, it does not really justify their guesses. Such guesses are inferences from nothing, much like metaphysics, gods and other superstitions and even when guessing right, it still does not equal knowledge. When we, the humanity, did not know what causes dreams we should not have been guessing spirits caused them, but logically recognized we do not know, and investigate further rather than make proclamations, and I dear say, predictions of future by interpreting our dreams. Yes? That is now passed and it can no longer be altered, but the future is in our hands and it is up to us to be responsible about it for the benefit of future generations and life, or not.
What sort of “abundant” evidence to support the existance of a god are you referring to?
LikeLike
Rautakyy, I find your worldview very interesting. But to be honest, I feel you have to strain to make all things physical. You used terms like ethics and moral understanding. You also said we shouldn’t do some things, such as assuming dreams came from spirits. Where did you get your idea of ethics? of morality? of right and wrong?
Only humans debate the right or wrong of killing, for instance. When a lion brings down a zebra, she doesn’t face a jury of her peers or an animal rights protest. There is nothing moral at issue. But for humans throughout time, there has been a consensus, a moral imperative, about killing unjustly.
You see, as long as you believe that only what we experience physically, there’s no reason to talk about God. You have already dismissed the possibility of His existence. All the evidence in the world will not counter your, Yeah, but I can’t see Him or touch Him for myself.
I’ll use an illustration I think I may have used on this site before. None of us have seen gravity, but we all believe that gravity is real. Why? Well, scientists tell us there is such a thing and we all experience things falling, as per what the scientists tell us gravity causes.
In the same way, we experience, and theologians tell us that, as God said, He made . . . well, everything. His existence answers the question of our existence and our purpose, for that matter, so we embrace the reality of His existence. But along comes someone who says, We have no evidence for God. Well, not true. Look around. What you see in nature is evidence of God. Sure, other people have postulated counter explanations, but the same could happen with gravity. I could come up with a counter explanation for why things fall. It wouldn’t make it true, though.
There’s much, much more. Books have been written about the subject. If you’re genuinely interested, I can give you some titles.
Becky
LikeLike
Becky, I don’t want to stretch the analogy too far lest it snap. However, two problems inherent to a puzzle with a missing box is that it’s very difficult to know what portion of the whole picture is in our possession, and it’s very difficult to know if a given piece actually belongs to the puzzle or not.
Maybe we have the edges and maybe we don’t. Maybe we have a few pieces, maybe we have one, maybe we have nothing. Without the box, how can we tell? If the mirror is darkened, who knows? As I said, who know what is beneath the waves? Honestly, I don’t know how one would answer this question. All we know is that we don’t know. As I’ve gotten old, the only thing that I’m certain about is that I’m less certain about almost everything.
Was the figure known to history as Jesus a piece of the puzzle or not? I understand that you think the he was a part of a revelation from God, but I’m not so sure. Does the Bible give us another piece. Again, I have my doubts. However, I don’t want to belabor the point as I really don’t want to be toooo argumentative. Just a little argumentative.
LikeLike
I understand what you’re saying, David. But that’s where trust comes in. Do you trust the scientists who tell us that gravity is why things we drop, fall instead of float? My guess is, you do, though you’ve never met them. If what they say matches your experience, then it’s easy to give them the benefit of any doubt. In fact, my guess is that idea isn’t even something you question. Though you’ve never seen gravity.
God is trustworthy. He has told us all we need for “life and godliness.” More than one skeptic has determined to disprove God’s existence and has ended up a committed believer in the good news of Jesus Christ, come to rescue us from the harm we commit in the world, to ourselves, to those close to us, to perceived enemies, to strangers. We can’t seem to stop ourselves from doing stuff we know we shouldn’t do. God’s word speaks directly to that condition, and Christianity is all about the solution to that problem. It’s knowable, David.
Becky
LikeLike
@Rebecca LuElla Miller, I admit to be flattered, that you would express my worldview to be interresting. 🙂
You ask me where do I get my morals and then as it happens you answer it yourself by saying: “Only humans debate the right or wrong of killing, for instance.” That is the simplest way to explain where my morals comes from. That indeed is where all morals of humans comes from. Or where do you suppose your morals comes from, if not from the debate. Our sense of morals is perhaps more advanced, certainly more complex, than that of your example of our distant genetical “cousins” the lions and the zebra. But our morals is equally guided by our natural need to survive, procreate and enjoy ourselves. Humans merely have the capacity to see further and cause greater change than the lion on average.
Is a lion killing a zebra wrong? Why not? Is this because it is just natural that a lion kills the zebra, or could it be, that the zebra or it’s kin feel it to be wrong on some level unable to debate the emotion? Why do we humans think killing a nother human being is wrong? Because we have possibly crossed some ultimate authority, that forbids all human killing in every imaginable sitiuation, or are there exemptions to the rule? Murder has been considered a wrong thing to do in all human socities throughout history, before any particular god came to forbid it. Has it not? Could it actually and quite a lot more likely (regardless wether gods exist or not) be, that we are able to see the harm in allowing murder amid us – to ourselves and those we care for, and therefore we deem it wrong? This is how I see morals formed. Neither of us would like to be murdered and I for sure would not like anyone to be murdered, and that is ultimately how both of us know it is wrong. But I could kill to protect myself, or my loved ones from being murdered. Would that be wrong? Why?
Is your morals not guided by harm and benefit analysis? That is a survival trait of analytical animals, especially such as us humans. The quality of the information on wich the analysis is based is the crucible in wich the truth of the analysis of right and wrong is measured. Guesswork about unnatural entities such as gods is not in any case quality information. Not as long as we have no means to define these gods, measure them, be sure of their motives, let alone their very existance. Being sure someone has guessed right is not a logical conclusion. Is it?
We actually can observe gravity. Gravity is not unnatural, it is part of the natural, physical observable universe. Gods do not appear anywhere exept in human imagination and folklore. Gravity is natural and a physical phenomenon, much like emotions. Do you, by the way, accept that emotions are part of our brainchemistry?
Theology is an arcane field of research that one of the American founding fathers Thomas Paine described perfectly: “The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion. Not anything can be studied as a science, without our being in possession of the principles upon which it is founded; and as this is the case with Christian theology, it is therefore the study of nothing.” Theology is still considered among the sciences, is because of historical reasons, but it fails actually the rigours of science in the founding idea. It starts from the final conclusion and is unable to come to any other conclusion than that the original assumption based on folklore is true. It is a form of anti-science.
I humbly thank you for your offering on the reading you could recommend. If you have the time to spend it will be much appriciated, though I must confess, I have a long reading list of classical, recommended, and research papers of my own field of study before I have time to delve in any of those, so they shall hardly put our conversation into any particular direction. I myself have a small recommendation, that might help you understand me and my view on morals if you happen to have the time to spare. Read about the “Euthyphro dilemma” wich is from Plato and deals with what Socrates said about the source of morals.
LikeLike
Becky, I trust scientists a lot more than I trust theologians, in part, because I do know many scientists, and I understand how science works. And it does help that scientist tend to stick to the observable natural world. However, I certainly don’t simply trust them absolutely, totally and completely.
But then again, I don’t have to totally and completely trust them. The nice thing about science is that it’s based on testable hypotheses, and I can test at least some of the hypotheses myself. No trust in scientists required.
For example, if I doubt the theory of gravity, I can test this myself by jumping off of a tall building. The experiment will allow me to “see” gravity, and the results will either support or contradict the theory. In the case of gravity, based on everything we understand about how the world works, I predict that the results will support the theory. Of course, if the results support the theory, I will likely have lost interest by the end of the experiment.
Unfortunately, tests of the hypothesis that “God’s word is trustworthy” have produced decidedly mixed results. I suspect that this is because “God’s words” are actually just the words of flawed human beings. For example, the words of the Bible have “human” written all over them.
You know, I’ve noticed that we’ve gone from glimpses and darkened mirriors and things a finite mind can’t grasp … to now things are “knowable.” Well, if things are knowable, I suspect that it’s because human words are indeed knowable. We’re a clever species. When put our minds to it, we’re pretty good at finding solutions to problems.
Sadly, our solutions are not perfect, and that’s what leaves us with the contradictions and the “mysteries” of theology. Well, you have to give us credit for trying.
LikeLiked by 1 person
David, you give science far too much credit. There are reversals, competing hypotheses, and unknows all over the place. Regarding God’s word, you tipped your hand by saying, ” I suspect that this is because ‘God’s words’ are actually just the words of flawed human beings.” You’ve already decided, so nothing I can say will have any impact on you. It’s no different than the flat earth people refusing to believe the evidence that the earth is actually round. If that isn’t the case, I’d be happy to point you to some resources where you can find out what evidence there is that the Bible is God’s word.
Becky
LikeLike
Becky, I’m sorry, but where did I say that science was perfect and scientist never make mistakes? Where did I say there were no reversal, competing hypothesis and unknowns? Of course, science is flawed because it’s done by humans and humans are flawed. I’m just saying that, on balance, I find science to be more reliable and useful than theology. I’d be glad to explain why, but that would be a long discussion.
I’m not sure what you mean by “tipped my hand,” because I never intended that my hand be hidden. Perhaps I should made this clearer from the very start, but it’s my view that the Bible is not a perfect revelation of a perfect loving God.
Now, you’re right that this is not likely to change, because I can’t unknow what I know or unsee what I have seen. I didn’t get to where I’m at just yesterday or without thought. But before we get to carried away with comparing me to flat earthers, perhaps I might ask if there is anything that I could say to you that will have any impact on your view that the Bible is a trustworthy revelation of God or your view that God is a perfect loving deity. I suspect that I’m not the only one in this conversation with fla earth tendencies.
Byt the way, you picked an interesting analogy when you spoke of “flat earth people,” because this is question that science can answer. It’s a question that is based in the physical, natural world. That makes it an inheherently different type of question from a theological or metaphysical question.
Questions about the physical world are questions that we might be able to answer, and in answering these questions, we can look at physical evidence. I can test hypotheses about the shape of the Earth using actual, observable physical evidence. It’s one of the nice things about science.
On the other hand, metaphysical questions like is God perfect? It’s all castles in the air.
LikeLike
David, I’d mean to imply that your view is, science is perfect. But when you said it was reliable, I felt it important to put on the table the fact that it has not proved reliable in many instances. Medical practitioners, for example, used to bleed people as a healing device, and today many discount things such as acupressure and chiropractic, though more and more evidence is turning that thinking around. So what science “knows” actually might be reversed tomorrow. That isn’t particularly reliable as a worldview, I don’t think.
You say you can’t unknow what you know, but that’s what science does regularly.
On the other hand, those who believe the Bible recognize it as authoritative and complete and without error in its original and without mistake in its overarching story. True, there are cults that have added to Scripture, but that, by definition, disqualifies them from being Christians. The Bible is the revelation of God, and things I might say that would contradict the Bible, simply aren’t true. Same with anything a religious leader might say. The Bible is the standard.
Which doesn’t mean people have all always understood it perfectly. Still, because the Bible identifies God as sovereign, we aren’t going to wake up one day and have new revelation that says, oops, God isn’t sovereign after all—humankind is, and has been all along.
In fact, Christians aren’t afraid to look at the Bible and ask questions: if God is sovereign, then why . . . That sort of thing. We aren’t afraid to engage skeptics and take a hard look at their questions because the Bible holds up under close scrutiny.
But since you aren’t interested in discussing that topic, David, this will be my last post here. I’ll let you close out the thread if you desire. It’s been interesting, and I appreciate your respectful tone.
Becky
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reliable is a relative term or quality. There’s more reliable and there’s less reliable. Science has a pretty good track record when it comes to understanding how the natural world works. Not perfect, but pretty good.
Certainly medical science is far from perfect. But if you doubt its value and relative reliability, walk through any 19th century graveyard and count the number of kid’s graves. After nearly two thousand years of Christian theology, there had been little change in childhood mortality rates. In the 1800s….still lots of dead kids. But 150 years of the science of microbiology has largely emptied the cemeteries of children. That’s not too shabby for a “worldview.”
Yes, the scientific understanding of a given natural phenomenon can change with new data and hypothesis testing. That’s one of its strength. We can learn from mistakes, make corrections and produce more accurate descriptions of the natural world. If we’re wrong, there are ways to find out that we are wrong.
You provide a nice contrast when you say that “we aren’t going to wake up one day and have a new revelation.” But what if the first “revelation” is wrong? If it happens that you are wrong, how do you that you’re wrong?
The Bible contains many errors. I’d be glad to discuss this.
Thanks for the interesting discussion.
LikeLike
Thanks for that article, Becky. He’s delightful! I hope it is okay if I post a link and blog about it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Absolutely!
LikeLike
This doesn’t address the original questions you said inspired your post at all perhaps, IB, but the whole thing makes me think of those chapters towards the end of Job where God directly addresses man and essentially smacks him down by pointing out how far beyond man’s tiny perceived power God’s real power actually is. I’ve looked at those chapters a lot more in recent months than I had in a long time before.
It’s such a paradox thinking of all that God has revealed to us versus all that I still don’t understand! I think wanting to question God is quite natural and in some forms fully encouraged by God himself. But in harder times I sometimes have to remind myself that it sometimes makes perfect sense to just surrender without fully understanding.
Maybe I’ll have the time and energy later to look more at the discussion in the comments and participate, but as I keep coming late to these discussions now that I’m back from my spring campout and playing catch-up I guess that’s probably unlikely to be seen anyway. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, there has just been so much said in the comments and even before the original blog post at the top that I doubt I can wisely address much more than a few tiny bits, and possibly not even that without risking confusion. But I did notice that Rau mentioned that we can identify and verify emotions as neuro-chemical. That one I wish I had the expertise to address more than I actually can explain well. In my own journey of emotional and mental healing from a lifelong tendency towards depression, from grief, and from many other “syndromes and symptoms” if I may lump it all together like that, I’ve learned that our physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual are all connected, each having an effect on the other. You can no more separate them out completely than you can lump them all together as if the words are just synonyms. You can’t always know what’s driving what, or what is pushing and what is pulling, but your least effective healing attempts will usually be single-minded approaches such as when I just took an anti-depressant AND conversely your most effective healing will come from a many-faceted approach that includes working on all of those parts of one’s self. I’ve benefitted from EMDR therapy, diet therapies, chiropractic, even acupuncture. Some things were really about totally physical stuff and some were chosen for their effect on the emotional or the mental or the spiritual. I’ve benefitted tremendously both from conscious effort at achieving enough time in a parasympathetic mode and from spiritually minded meditation. Both things are amazingly similar but they are still not the same thing exactly. They’re just difficult to explain well enough exactly how they are connected and similar and different. Ive benefitted tremendously from Bible reading and from prayer but also from B12 shots. I’ve benefitted from Buteyko breathing, walking, from fresh air, sunshine, going barefoot…I’m not even joking…from DIY music therapy, from fellowship with amazing people and from my efforts at love and understanding towards people whose fellowship efforts were difficult or challenging due to their own issues and struggles. I could go on all day and not remember to include all the stuff I’ve used and been helped by. The toxicity and dysfunctions we suffer from are rarely caused by one single factor and addressing them can be a complex journey. I don’t think mankind will ever fully understand all the physical because I don’t think mankind can see all the aspects of ourselves in physical manifestation. But we do have some fairly complex knowledge that helps us to understand how chemical aspects of ourselves can work and can go awry. And yet we also know that while chemical clinical depression is real that we can can control our thinking and effect our chemical makeup …sometimes in very precise and immediately measurable ways and sometimes over the long haul and with great complexity. That complexity explains some of why it’s true that I needed anti-depressants and was diagnosed as being dependent on them for a lifetime but after many years of not being able to do without them and suffering some terrible side effects from them, I eventually found enough healing that I’ve now been free of them and better off for several years.
I also noticed Rau mentioned animals having feelings and chemical states. This is an area that seems little understood by most people. But it is consistent with the Bible teaching us that men have a physical existence plus a soul AND a spirit (which most humans seem to confuse so that they then use the two words synonymously) and that animals have both a physical existence plus a soul, but no spirit. I think I’m getting that right. I tend to sometimes reverse the word ‘soul’ and the word ‘spirit’ when trying to speak about this. Animals are more than many men try to make them but not quite so much the same as us as what a different large group of us humans try to make them. Or perhaps that last one would be accurately stated as human are more again and that different group seems to mistake humans as being less than they are. Animals can definitely have feelings and I am certain they definitely do have. I do not think that animals were made in God’s image or that the intelligence and feeling we can see in them is connected to the unseen soul that so often confuses our use of the word ‘sentience’.
Funny thing, I stopped writing for a minute or two and went Internet surfing to see if I could find anything to jog my mind and help me confirm if I was conflating the soul and the spirit or keeping them straight, and I found an article by a guy I’ve met and had fellowship with some at my spring campouts, but never discussed that particular topic with. I know of many things I respect about him and at least one topic we disagree on that I’d love to help him understand better. It’s always so cool to find such unlikely and random connections in the vast expanse of the Internet to such a tiny group as our group campout. Fun morning moment here.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I said, “The toxicity and dysfunctions we suffer from are rarely caused by one single factor and addressing them can be a complex journey.”
I should have added that no matter the simplicity or complexity of the cause of our dysfunctions (or states of I’ll-health) those problems impact many different systems both physical and otherwise.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And then when I was writing about the soul versus the spirit, “I do not think that animals were made in God’s image or that the intelligence and feeling we can see in them is connected to the unseen soul that so often confuses our use of the word ‘sentience’.”
See there I did it. I made my common mistake of conflating the two. I should have said the unseen spirit!
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Fromscratchmom, I am very sorry to hear, that you have had hardship, but I am also pleased to hear you have overcome much of that.
I share your view, that mankind will hardly ever fully understand all the physical, altough I think this because of the logical impossibility of knowing everything. There is no escaping the nature of information. Even if you were the sole creator of the universe and you knew everything that exists, you could not know what you do not know. There could always be information, that you simply are unaware of, and wich could totally change your perspective if it was ever revealed to you. Do you see what I mean?
At present I share your sentiment that neither do I think mankind can see all the aspects of ourselves in physical manifestation. We are rather new at thinking methodically about the reality. The mankind is ridden with all sorts of superstitious cultural heritage like spirits and gods. In a relatively short term of time we have taken great strides, as you said we do have some fairly complex knowledge that helps us to understand how chemical aspects of ourselves can work and can go awry. Yet, there is much work to be done in that field for things to getter better. From where I stand we could very well dump the baggage of superstition about unnatural entities and focus on the natural. On something we have the methodology to approach and actually grow our understanding, instead of blind obidience and religious faith.
I do not mean to demean your personal experience, but since we are on the subject, I do think you might be a little bit mistaken. It all boils down to when are we actually justified, or warranted to believe anything. Spirit healing and yoga and such have been recognized by medical science to have value in healing, if not as anything else, then at least as a placebo. The placebo effect is known to be effective, especially in any way psychologically related trauma. But they are also great traps for people who are in already in woulnerable situation. Are they not?
The justification to believe something of course derives from personal experience, but even then it really does not hurt to stop and think, give a rational analysis to what is happening to us, why do we percieve it as we do and are conclusions logically justified, or mere leaps of faith. Correct?
For my own part, I can say that nature, moving in nature and observing the variety of nature has had an obvious healing effect on myself. A recent Israeli study claimed, that the placebo works even when the subject is aware of it being a placebo. I do not know what the peer review for that study has said about it, but in my own personal experience, I could attest to that since I do not think there are any spirits, or other super- or otherwise unnatural factors, rather the healing effects of wandering into nature are psychological and of course the obvious physical ones, such as fresh air and a bit of exercise.
I expect even Bible reading may have a strong placebo effect, especially to someone who is deeply emotionally invested into it. I myself might for the same purpose choose The Lord of the Rings by Tolkien, Tehanu by Ursula le Guin, Startide Rising, by David Brin, or some other book that I actually know from cover to cover and that has affected me greatly. There must be some reason why I come back to these books again and again and one that I can recognize is that I find them to give me solace, comfort and open new venues of thought every time I open them. Reading the Bible to me was not a healing experience at all. It is not a very big part of my own cultural heritage and I franky while I can understand the motives of the ancient cultures presented in it, I found it often morally corrupt and tribally moralistic. Such things do not bother me when reading the Iliad, but when I know there are people who take the Bible for real as a moral guide, it turns my stomach. Nobody takes the Iliad for real, even though it certainly has some good moral stories in it just like the Bible does.
LikeLike
Thank you! 100+% right! And it DOES take more strength and courage to submit than to fight. Being a Texan, I’m like you: it’s hard for me to back down or back away from a fight. Only the miracle of God’s Holy Spirit in my heart & ruling my life (When I allow Him too!) keeps me living a victorious life. Thanks for a great post. God bless you.
LikeLiked by 1 person