Why don’t you? Our love for our children can be easily explained by our mammalian evolution. Understanding why we feel it in no way diminishes the feeling! Why not analyze the suffering of your neighbor? Maybe your neighbor is suffering from mistakes brought on by himself, which he must go through to resolve. Maybe it is from chance, in which case help is important. Maybe his suffering is a warning of something that might happen to you. We shouldn’t wait for our buildings to fall down in an earthquake to reenforce them - watch other building fall down should help us know what to do. As for god, you can’t prove god, but you can test your belief against your senses and reality.
“So it goes.”
Indeed. I’m not sure how much of that is development and how much is articulation – for me, the conversion experience was very much like learning a new language or a new artform. Some things are just easier to say – difference in vocabulary means that there are words for things I used to thrash around uselessly to find ways of expressing, or grammatical and stylistic standards express different nuances of meaning. Also, the established body of knowledge and thought manipulating these now easier-to-handle concepts is there already to explore, adapt, and embellish; I don’t have to do it all on my own.
And of course the sort of interaction between the gods and the morality varies depending on which polytheistic system – which ties into your comments about tribal gods and the sorts of behaviours that differ with them.
In my theological system, the gods are also obligated to uphold ma’at. (In fact, the relationship with humans and gods is in significant part one of mutual support for doing so.) It might be said that for the gods it is even more important – ma’at is what they are said to eat. (Extrapolation would suggest, I ponder now, theologically speaking, that ma’at is the sustenance for spiritual entities, and thus that doing ma’at feeds one’s own souls as well. I may have to go noodle at that a bit.)
I suspect that even if I were a monotheist who was confident that Phelps had a broken god-antenna, I wouldn’t consider it useful to argue with him for the reasons of practicality I mentioned. “Preach the Gospel always. When necessary, use words.”
“There is no compulsion in religion.” Surah 2, Verse 256, Holy Qur’an. This page, which I found while looking for the chapter-and-verse for that, is kinda neat.
I don’t examine my love for my children (or anyone) because it does diminish it. It is a fundamental principal of logical and scientific examination that the examiner be dispassionate, avoiding emotional predisposition toward the phenomenon being examined. That pretty much means that I have to stop loving my child to examine my love in any really logical or scientific sense. No thanks. I prefer to love them passionately, and without imposed limitations. I may have to alter my behavior toward my child based on dispassionate elements of the world in which we live, but I will not alter the love I feel for them. I’d rather study measles. I don’t love measles.
I will not analyze my neighbor’s suffering. The analyst cannot interrupt what is being analyzed. That’s not a good enough excuse to stand by as he suffers. I prefer to come to him with comfort, and perhaps aid, and let him analyze his actions, as he will. I don’t claim that there can be no benefit to such an analysis, only that I choose to act otherwise first. If he wants my help in such an analysis, I might be willing to do it.
Proof of God is a somewhat different thing. Every attempt I have ever made, or ever seen made by others to prove or disprove the existence of God has ended up in intellectual tail chasing, or acrimony. God doesn’t present me with a philosophical question. I had those before I knew God. I don’t have answers to those questions, but I no longer want answers. In the words of St. Cuthbert of the Cudgel, “Salvation is better than smart answers.”
There is so much in the universe that stands waiting for the mind of man to examine, and analyze, and explore with these tools of the mind. I think that such endeavors are worthy, and become more needed, and more beneficial to mankind as time passes. But the mind does not encompass all that is. There are matters of the spirit that we don’t need to understand. A child can know love, and can love. God loves. It isn’t about understanding. You don’t figure it out.
Tris
“Don’t you want somebody to love?” ~ Grace Slick ~
Sorry to be so far behind in the discussion, but I’m still hung up on choice.
To continue Polycarp’s analogy, if I know the governor of Oregon personally, then I don’t need to “believe in” him/her. Doesn’t this make it a matter of knowledge rather than belief?
For those of you who say faith doesn’t involve choice: what makes faith different from knowledge?
This is why I find the concept of “faith in god’s existence” to be useless, myself.
Terry Pratchett put it amusingly in one of his Discworld books: “Witches don’t believe in gods. It would be like believing in the postman.”
I’m sorry to hear that. It hasn’t affected my love for my kids. If anything understanding that we are evolutionarily determined to love our babies the moment they come out made it even more wonderful. Understanding what the stars are increases my awe at them also.
But analysis does not preclude assistance, in fact it might make the assistance more effective. We’re not sociologists, duty bound to study and not interfere - and I wonder if the code of ethics of sociologists precludes helping get food during a famine. I agree that analysis without assistance would be cruel.
Well, as I’m sure you’re aware, no one is expecting to be able to prove or disprove god. Maybe some limited definitions can be disproven.
And I don’t know how to respond to quotes from what appears to be a dnd figure. 
I’ll take smart answers myself - they feed you and help you live longer and healthier.
Great – you not only want me to handle the question of the justness of salvation but also the Problem of Evil! Shall I put on my Dumb Ox costume for this?
Let’s start with my view of “evidentiality.” Most of the arguments about the existence of God seem to revolve around the “there’s no evidence!” “is too!” “is not!” sort of intersnipitude. By which, obviously, each participant means that there is or is not enough evidence to suit their understanding of proof of deity.
Mine, as I’ve mentioned, is founded in subjective experience – an internal theophany. But I think it’s important to recognize that God did not, in effect, say to me, “Le Dieu eternelle, le Pere, le Fils, et l’Esprit Saint, c’est Moi.” What I got was a sense of immense power in the service of immense love, caring directed towards me and towards all mankind. Because I have a Christian upbringing and a familiarity with the Gospels, I identified the Presence Whom I encountered – in the midst of a theology course, FWIW! – with the Trinitarian God of Christianity. And He, as presented by the Scriptural evidence in the Gospels, meets the definition of the Presence which I encountered.
In that passage which JMS@CCT has been bent on turning to the support of his Dispensationalist doctrine, Paul advises to “test the spirits,” checking against Scripture to be sure that the experience you have matches up with the God and Father of Jesus Christ. And yes, IMO He does.
In the thread which JMS has apparently decided to hijack, I laid out my understanding, based in Scripture, of what Jesus Himself said were the most important things to be doing, practical modes of implementing His principles, and the attitude in which to do them.
So at rock bottom, a selfish faith is not justifiable. One that is solely interested in the good of the self, whether worldly possessions or salvation, is not in accordance with that test – if you care to take Jesus’s teachings seriously, and not find excuses to interpret them according to your personal prejudices. (The “you” there is generic, not yourself, Alan, of course.)
As for “my ultimate good,” while I fall far short of “Nevertheless, not my will but Thine be done,” I do have a Panglossian sense that all things work out for good in the end. (Old sardonic adage: The optimist believes that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist is afraid that he’s right. ;))
The sense in which I believe this is one that I need to go into personal psychological history to resolve. As I mentioned in the Laura Bush/boys thread, I had a very strict and Stoic upbringing – “a real, manly man” does not show emotions, according to my parents, and a good boy is supposed to suppress his and try to become that manly man who lets nothing affect him. Well, of course, that resulted in a lot of wall-building during my adolescence, a sense that nobody would want anything to do with me if they knew what I was really like inside. I gather that this fear of rejection is extremely common in gay people and in most introverts, and fairly much so in a few other categories of people.
The net result was to turn me into a sort of benign sociopath, one who could not and did not care about other people in any demonstrable way, who was incapable of tearing down those walls. Certainly I had a vague sense of well-wishing for others, but was afraid to show it, even in the most socially acceptable of ways.
The impact of my conversion experience changed that, to a significant degree. I became rather more outspoken – and for me, learning true humility was learning how to be brave. Then finding out that Michael, our neighbor odd-job boy, was in trouble, and hearing myself say, “If that’s what happened, he’s going to need friends. Tell him to come see us” – and I swear that that was totally involuntary; I did not cause my voice to utter those words, though as soon as they were said, I realized I meant them – led inexorably to the breaking down of the emotional walls and my ability to express love, receive love, and generally become truly human for the first time in my life. And I’ve been catching up with lost time ever since.
But the odd part of this whole thing, and part of what convinces me that that Presence was not self-delusion, is that the Me who had that experience, would never have been willing to become the outspoken, caring person that I am – he would definitely have been too afraid of what might happen, despisal, rejection, etc. I would then have been terrified of choosing to become the person that I have in fact become, and find fulfillment and satisfaction in having become.
And of course, I’m much happier being the person that I am than I was being that inhibited sociopath.
And I’ve found that over the last few years, I’ve continued to change and grow, in large part under the influence of this board and what I encounter here – and likewise for St. Mark’s.
So I am (irrationally) convinced that whatever betide me in the future, I can count on ongoing reshaping of my self, my inner person, to find the good in what happens. I have no real interest in becoming impotent, impoverished, paraplegic, or whatever – but I know that I can face them with equanimity if they happen. Romans 12:1-2 is very much on target as regards that reshaping – and I can testify from personal experience that it’s not merely pious platitude, but a statement of the actual work of making someone over into a more Christian person – in the good sense.
As for the Problem of Pain – why do bad things happen in a world created and under the influence of an omnipotent and benevolent God? – I have no better answer than anyone else in the last 10,000 years who’s asked that question – to wit, no answer.
But I’m convinced that that is a case of “putting God in the dock,” as Lewis put it – to judge Him by our standards of good and evil – and that in point of fact, the proper response to horrific, tragic, or just plain bothersome happenings is not to look for scapegoats, human or divine, but to go forth and offer practical help to those who need it. That’s what we’re supposed to do, both as human beings and as agents of the God from whom help is asked. If, in the old joke, “I sent you two boats and a helicopter,” well, somebody has to be rowing those boats and flying that helicopter. And, rather than trying to sort out what God ought to have done to live up to our expectations of Him – which, to use the Father-and-child metaphor again, may be like a three-year-old considering his father mean for not allowing him unlimited quantities of candy and an infinitely-large playground – we’re supposed to be rowing and piloting, as our individual talents permit.
Daniel, I’ve known you too long and too well to regard this as a personal attack. I also rather like you, even when I disagree with you.
Short answer: I don’t know. Long answer: I really don’t know. I’ll tell you another story. As I mentioned I got a wonderful job and liked it well. I even had a great working relationship with a woman who was my friend as well as my boss. One Friday I told her I’d worked out the solution to an obstacle I’d been facing and I should have the latest modification to a very good application I’d been working on early the following week. She didn’t look as happy as she usually did. Five minutes later, I was laid off again. This time, I didn’t find work right away. That was in August. In September, two of my closest and dearest friends told me they’d bought a house in Maine, 600 miles away. I spent that fall helping them move. In October, I came to the reluctant conclusion that I was going to have to leave my church, the one that had got me through my adolesence. In three months, I lost my job, two of my closest friends, and my church and the worst wasn’t over. I gave up trying to find work as a programmer when my unemployment benefits were about to run out and wound up working as an administrative assistant for a man who may well be the worst boss I’ve ever had. While it may not be prostate cancer and my wife leaving me, believe me, it wasn’t pleasant! :eek: I very nearly did commit suicide more than once. I didn’t have time to pray before I was laid off and, as far as I know, no one else was laid off that day. I don’t think the things that happened to me did so because I didn’t pray. Truth be told, I don’t know why they happened, only that it hurt.
Two of my best friend’s husband’s sisters and his mother died within 18 months of each other. I don’t know why and I know full well if I ask God I won’t get an answer. It’s probably none of my business.
You spoke of God giving me cookies, not noogies. I’ve had my share of noogies, believe me. I started young, standing by a friend who was handicapped when everyone around me told me if I wanted to be liked I wouldn’t be her friend. I refused to stop, refused to conform. Being her friend was Right! (She was also a really neat person!:D) The scars I picked up by my refusal to conform and disown her shaped who I am today. Back at that first job I mentioned, I insulted a rather notoriously touchy co-worker. I didn’t realize she was in the room at the time, although even if she hadn’t been that would’t have made what I did any less wrong. Sometime later, I went on a church retreat. The message I took away from that retreat was “You have to apologize to her.” I didn’t want to. I expected her to get mad at me and tell me off like she had so many others. Quite frankly I was scared. It was also the right thing to do, whether I liked it or not. I’ve had to be nice and polite to people I really didn’t care for much (I’m sure you can think of a few who used to hang around here, if you tried); I’ve had to do things I really would have preferred to let others handle. My particular odd variant of Christianity forces me to take full responsibility for my actions or lack thereof and the consequences of them whether I like it or not. I live my life by tough standards: Love God; love your neighbor, even if my neighbor is the **** who’s tailgating me in a snowstorm. In my case, it also requires that I fight for and defend others, even if that sometimes means I defend them against other Christians.
My faith to me is music, too sweet and strong to ignore, too powerful to stand against. It has made me who I am and, many years ago, it saved my life. I have voluntarily and of my own free will chosen to serve that faith, no matter what the cost. At the risk of sounding insane, I cannot do otherwise, not any more.
CJ
I like that idea. Then I won’t have to lok for a jorb. 
Out of place? Since when is education out of place?
Since no one else seems to have caught this, I guess it’s up to me.
You can’t leave things like this to faith – faith, or trust that we will learn these things by osmosis or be divinely inspired or taught “in dreams” or that the right ‘person’ will come around to teach us these things. This alone is a basis for a demonstration that all ‘faith’ is misplaced.
Learning how to masturbate by chance or accident will result often in improper or substandard technique. People will hurt themselves or get turned off to sex or spend their lives with unfulfilled sex drives until and if they are properly educated.
Yes, each of us should be taught to masturbate when we reach our teens. Properly, so that misguided or misdirected sexual urges won’t get us in trouble. Similarly we should also be taught how to have sex properly, to give our partners pleasure and thereby increase partnership longevity. You can’t leave these things to faith.
Similarly, if each of us was taught proper handling and usage of weapons, especially firearms, at an early age, especially firearm safety, fewer teens would get killed by accidental discharges. Look where leaving that to faith has gotten us!
Faith is a mistake. It sets you up for disappointment. Education about factual matters is what is needed. That is what leads to success and well adjusted people.
I certainly have no disagreement with your post – but you missed my point: the analogy was to the idea that adolescents should be taught to avoid the pitfalls in romantic love relationships – absurd, as I’m sure you agree – “faith” as I use it is not “blind” but has that same sort of trust-despite-the-risk requirement as falling in love (and is nearly as unwilled). In no way was I opposed to masturbation in that post; it was merely a throwaway line to provide an alternative to romantic liaison.
Err – correction to my last post. You’re ranting against the use of the term by a certain group which believes in keeping children naive (or thinking they are) and similarly not teaching firearm safety.
I am, as you evidently did not catch from the rest of my post, speaking of something quite different – and involving reason and education in one’s belief structure, merely noting that it is founded on a non-rational, emotionally based premise that, I believe, cannot be adequately proven. (See the “Define God” thread for extensive discussion on this.)
You are of course welcome to reject my views along with those of the Bushista regimented-belief squads – but I’d be honored if you did take the time to see the distinction between them.
Okay, that makes a lot more sense to me: I think I was wrong in believing your first post was saying, “I have faith because when I pray, God does good things.” Faith as magic is on flimsy ground, I think; faith as music is something I can dig.
And for what it’s worth, I think you’re pretty cool, too.
Daniel
So, if I’m not a racecar driver, and your girlfriend is not a racecar drive, but she has no considered position on racecar driving… she’s a racecar driver?
[Mr. Heckles]
She could be a racecar driver.
[/Mr. Heckles]
I missed this, since I saw the next response, and kind of ignored this one, but it brings up an interesting point. Using the strict definition of atheist as “lacking belief in any god” Apos is correct: your girlfriend is an atheist, assuming she has no god belief. Atheists often say that atheism is the default position, since babies, lacking god belief, are atheists. (I kind of think parents fit the bill for the first few months, but no matter.) There is no term I know of distinguishing default atheism from rationally derived atheism, that is atheism from never having thought of god and atheism from considering god beliefs and not finding them convincing. I find the weak vs. strong vs. agnosticism dispute worthy, since theists often use strong atheism as a strawman position for all atheists, but I don’t see this one as being too interesting. That said, considering the bias against atheists in the US, at least, the “I never think about it” position is often a cover for someone who is an atheist since “I don’t give a damn” is a hard position to argue against, if repeated often enough.
Atheism in my view is the formulated belief that there is no god (“hard atheism”, or that, the preponderance of the evidence being inadequate to demonstrate the existence of a god, the reasonable conclusion is that there is not one (“soft atheism”).
Agnosticism is similar, being either the belief that one cannot know whether there is a god (ironically termed “hard agnosticism”) or that the individual in question does not and perhaps cannot know (presumably “soft agnosticism”)/
Obviously deists and theists hold the belief that there is such a God, being distinguished by whether they have “faith” (in my usage of the term – I’m claiming my right as OP to define the term for this purpose! :)) in the God they believe to exist. (As I understand it, the Deist believes in the existence of a God who created a more-or-less self-operating universe and does not intervene in it.)
For the above reasons, I think that the default, zero-point position of not having formulated an opinion on the subject does not fit any of the above definitions. Someone once half-jokingly coined the term “apatheist” in a long-dead thread to describe such people; I’m not at all sure it isn’t worth resurrecting to distinguish their views from all the formulated-opinion folks.
Slight addition to the above – clearly my use for “theist” reference monotheists, but are equally applicable to pantheons of dualist and polytheist deity systems taken as a group.
Just a quibble around the earth-centric view of gods. While your definition of soft atheism is correct for the gods specified by flavors of theists, it does not cover other gods. While I am prepared to conclude from my view of the evidence that there is no Christian type god, I am not ready to conclude that there is no Denebian god. I’m certainly not going to conclude that there is one either. I certainly have no belief in this god!
I used to think that hard atheism involved claiming that no gods at all exist. Actually, it just means believing that no gods exist. The first goes beyond the evidence available or possibly available, but the second, couched as a belief, is actually fairly reasonable under the circumstances. It took me a long time to see this, so like any convert I want to spread the word.