It’s up to you as to what(if anything) you believe about your god, but from the outside blind faith in one aspect/ability/desire of your god is no different than blind faith in any other aspect/ability/desire.
edited to add: Can you describe the difference between blind faith that your god wants us to be happy and blind faith that your god will save us from snakes?
One expression of faith doesn’t make any assertion about things that have happened, are happening, or will happen in the physical, logical universe. The other expression of faith makes many such assertions.
Then I would say that you have more blind faith than snake-handlers do, because they at least have supposed actions of their god stopping snakes, while you are making assertions about what your god desires without even permitting him to enter your universe to directly effect his desires. Your god cannot be touched because he touches nothing.
Well yeah, obviously it comes down to how well a person can look at world events and conform them to the model they’re attempting to slide past the PoE. I just personally am unable to reconcile the scale issues. Allowing a loving parent god to stand aside and let the holocaust happen due to ‘waiting for the tantrum to end’ or whatever requires a distancing and compressed perception of time that is irreconcilably incompatible with also noticing, sorrowing over, and then utterly failing to do anything about an infant’s fatal genetic defect due to, er, why was this allowed again? In any case if the god feels the pain of each individual slaughtered it makes no sense whatsoever for the god to casually stand by and play hands-off with genocides - unless the god in question doesn’t give a fig about human suffering and death, of course.
And it’s always nice to have a calm talk about religion. Or about most any subject, really.
So it is reasonable to conclude that the god’s love will not, nay, cannot result in any detectable effects in real life, then?
Not if God has never interacted with us. We can say lots of things about the denizens of Deneb 4, but none of them interesting in not being made up of whole cloth. If God can interact with the world, he is physical in the sense that he can influence the physical world.
I’d say that this assertion came from the culture which we are all steeped in, a culture which assumes that God wants to be loved by us, etc. If we were ancient Greeks we’d probably think something different.
You didn’t leap yourself - you were pushed by those who invented the God loves us stuff thousands of years ago. And they knew nothing about God either.
We can discuss in the sense of “who is more evil, Darth Vader or Voldemort” but if we want to say that we are not talking about a fictional character, we need to show some evidence of his existence.
Oh, so the world is in such good shape that he doesn’t need to do anything? With umpty-eleven contradictory religions not to mention the rise of secularism, it wouldn’t make sense for God to straighten us out? Not to mention whatever holy book he inspired could use a Rev 2 around now. None have the commandment “You shalt not stare at your phone during dinner” for one thing.
Given all the contradictory directions on how to live our lives that supposedly come from God, this is kind of tough to do.
Would he intervene if someone launched a nuclear attack? If we continue to destroy the planet?
How would society feel if a parent decided to stop intervening in their kids lives once they reached 10? Or 13?
The more logical explanation is that God’s supposed contact with us was just made up by the writers of holy books (just like in the Iliad) and once we got to the point of being able to record and evaluate evidence, the scam no longer worked.
Or usually didn’t work - Joseph Smith did a pretty good job of it, though when we could translate some of the hieroglyphics he supposedly translated it turned out to be nothing like he said.
Interacting with the characters in my story is easy to do - except it makes the story into a farce. There have been lots of fantasy/sf stories about this. Asimov had one, and L Ron Hubbard, in the Unknown years, had a funny one called “Typewriter in the Sky.” My Unknowns are too crumbly to want to touch, but I think it ends with the characters realizing that their god is a pot bellied guy sitting at a typewriter in a dirty bathrobe.
BTW, knowing something exists does not eliminate free will. Did the Israelites not have free will during the Exodus, a time when God was quite evident?
What you are saying is like not publishing the law because then we’d be compelled to obey it, and not have free will.
I trust that you don’t believe in hell, because if you do the problem is even worse.
Maybe family relationships. I have pretty much “blind faith” in my family.
(I suppose it isn’t “blind” because it’s been earned over all the years, but, right now, if my sister told me to do something, I’d do it without questioning, and that is a kind of blind faith.)
You are human, and get a pass. God on the other hand is not. Maybe he can tell some of those who claim to speak for him that he does not want us to beat up gay people. Or something like that. Not force them to be good, just correct them.
No, that is not blind faith. It is faith with previous hard evidence to back it.
My kids are well past 20. And I have not disappeared from their lives the way God has vanished from the world. And I still give advice when asked. Not to mention babysit.
They got corrected when they were young, but not punished in the way God seems to punish us. And they grew up pretty damn nice.
Maybe God isn’t around because he got hauled in by the God cops for abuse of those he created. But I sure wish they’d find a foster deity for us already.
For the record I googled Kierkegaard and “axiom of faith”, and the first result was this page, in this very thread right here. It doesn’t appear that it’s a common term in his work. According to wikipedia the term “leap of faith” is commonly associated with him, but I wouldn’t imagine that that means the same thing.
What is meant by “axiom of faith”?
Oh, and on further reading of that wiki page it appears that Kierkegaard didn’t use the term “leap of faith”, either - he used the term “leap to faith”, by which he appears to have meant “Quit fucking around with all that thinking stuff and just get on with believing - you’re never going to able to prove your religion so you’re wasting your time.” It appears the context was that he was sick and tired of all the philosophizing.
The term “leap” appears to have had special meaning for him as well - any qualitative change appears to be (or require) a “leap”. So it takes a “leap” to go from analyzing god (faithlessly) to just shutting up and believing in him (faithfully). Based on that I’m really not sure you can swap the term with “axiom” and not have a completely different meaning. And what that meaning might be I have no idea.
Abductive reasoning based on an incomplete but relevant data set is a rational but imperfect way of increasing the odds of making good decisions.
A leap in faith based on an imaginary god and a fanciful data set is not rational, so one would expect the odds of it leading to good decisions to be significantly less likely than for rational decisions. History proves this out.
Knowingly putting aside rational decision making for irrational decision making is an example of ignorance at work, for it is no better than putting one’s fingers in one’s ears and shouting “I can’t hear you.”
I believe that God allows the fatal genetic defects of infants to reach a terminal degree because God wants us, as a collective species, to develop the techniques and tools to combat the fatal genetic defects of infants ourselves, rather than constantly relying on God to cure infants of fatal genetic defects until the end of time.
I believe that God allowed the Holocaust to happen because God wants us to develop a society where things like the Holocaust don’t, can’t, and won’t happen on our own, rather than constantly relying on God to flood the cities and nations of evil until the end of time.
Again, there’s a significant difference of degree between “A parent wants their child to pick themselves up after they fall, rather than always having to be helped back onto their feet.” and “God lets the Holocaust and fatal genetic defects in infants happen because God wants humans to handle tragedy and evil people on their own.” but the general idea, for me, at least, is the same.
But yes, I would agree with you that - at present - God exhibits no detectable effects on the physical, logical universe, aside from possibly providing mental, emotional, or spiritual inspiration to individuals which is a non-measurable effect, regardless.
I mean, to be fair, “interesting” is a pretty subjective term being thrown around right now.
I would appreciate it greatly if you didn’t make assumptions and statements about my conversion, especially when they contradict what I’ve already said about my conversion. I’ve already mentioned that my conversion came after long and hard internal contemplation and introspection. Please don’t try to assert that my conversion came about merely because I was “pushed” by other people.
To be fair, my quip about God being discussed from an Augustinian standpoint assumes that all individuals involved in said discussion are working from the same, evidential-null axiom of faith.
You’re making several assumptions here, none of which are necessarily true.
You firstly assume that God wants everybody to follow one singular, strict faith, and is willing to use physical intervention to force everybody to follow the same singular, strict faith. You’re secondarily assuming that God believes that “staring at your phone during dinner” is something so utterly abhorrent that God needs to physically intervene to correct it manually. And you’re tertiarily making the assumption that any and all religious scripture is direct truth straight from God’s metaphysical mouth, and that there’s no such thing as flawed, potentially abusive mortals manipulating spiritual and religious beliefs out of mistaken zealotry or personal ambition.
I don’t know. I assume that there are other planets out there with life on them that God considers to be children just as much as God considers us to be children, so if one planet full of sapient life amongst thousands or millions is lost, it’s not as if the whole universe is lost. If we are, somehow, the only planet in the whole of God’s universe with sapient life on it, then I assume that God would do something to keep sapient life going, though I obviously had no idea what that might be.
My belief is that God’s ultimate desire is to have companions to love and to be loved by. I’m not so vain as to assume that human beings on planet Earth orbiting the star known as Sol are the only companions that have been created, though.
I mean, again, it’s an issue of what you consider humanity’s current “maturity level” to be. I’m confident that humanity has reached - to continue the metaphor - a maturity level of around the mid 20s, to compare to a human person.
Like I said, mistaken or outright abusive people manipulate religious and spiritual belief out of misguided zealotry or personal benefit all the time. Just because I believe in God does not believe that I believe in all humans who claim to speak for God.
Sorry, I was trying to make a joke. I guess it was bad and failed. :smack:
I certainly don’t believe in a fiery lake of brimstone where people suffer for all eternity, if that’s what you’re asking. I do believe in an afterlife where people who were void of love in life are void of life in the afterlife and must struggle to reach a place of love.
I think God would rather see us defeat misguided bigotry on our own, rather than constantly recoursing to a higher power to take care of it for us.
Sorry, I probably should have clarified much earlier.
By “axiom of faith” I mean a statement such as this, that I’ve professed more than a few times in this thread already:
“God exists, loves us, wants us to be happy, and wants us to love each other.”
or, alternatively:
“God exists, hates us, and created us for the explicit purpose of tormenting us for fun.”
Either of those are statements that exists outside of all evidence or reason; it is a statement of sheer faith. It becomes an “axiom” when two people who believe the same thing - such as, say, Augustine and Aquinas - discuss with one another the logical implications of such an axiom.
If God exists, loves us, wants us to be happy, and wants us to love each other, then what does that logically imply about God, ourselves, or the universe?
The axiom itself exists outside of logic, but logical conclusions about the axiom can be drawn from the axiom, and it is possible to be logically consistent about the axiom.
For example:
“God exists, loves us, wants us to be happy, and wants us to love each other. Therefore, this means that, if we wish to serve God, we should be happy and love each other.” This is a logical conclusion drawn from an axiom of faith.
Alternatively:
“God exists, loves us, wants us to be happy, and wants us to love each other. Therefore, this means that, if we wish to serve God, we should violently murder, torture, and rape those who don’t believe the same as us.” This is an illogical conclusion drawn from the same axiom of faith.
tl;dr “Leap to faith” and “axiom of faith” weren’t meant to be used interchangeably and I apologize if it seemed as if I was using them as so.
You’re making the assumption that religious people necessarily have to make major life decisions based on the leap to faith, apart from stuff along the lines of “I should try to be happy and to love others.”
Just because I’m religious doesn’t mean that I don’t make decisions in my life based firmly in empirical evidence and logical reasoning. I believe in the Big Bang, in evolution, and in climate change. I don’t believe that God regularly comes down and cures people of cancer or makes them walk again or smites my enemies.
Believing in God is not an “irrational decision”, because the simple, primary belief in God exists outside of the boundaries of rationality or irrationality, and, depending on who you ask, is barely even a “decision” to begin with.
Understood.
I will say, though, that I would consider your god to be an awful parent. He may expect us to be mature and inventive and self-managing at our civilization’s advanced age, but clearly we as a society are developmentally impaired and not capable of intuiting good behaviors from whatever education we’ve supposedly received. (If the Bible is society’s memory of God’s word, then clearly we have recall problems). The situation is akin to a parent looking at a stupid child playing with a lighter, and simply tut-tuting when the kid lights themselves on fire.
And again, I think that this approach for refuting the PoE clashes dramatically with the idea that God cares about humans at an individual level. We let the child set his leg on fire and refrain from so much as lifting a finger to put him out because we recognize that the first degree burns are a fleeting pain that, surely, he’ll learn from this time. But that approach is only possible if the horrific death of all the individual burning skin and muscle cells isn’t something you care much about. A loving parent can casually ignore the screams of the child, as one does, but it takes a thicker skin to hold back when your children are literally dying.
If god is actually twiddling with people’s minds, then that’s certainty detectable (and the religious would tell you so!), and more than that if this ‘inspiration’ actually modifies their behavior then it should have a scientifically measurable effect as well.
When it becomes clear that the christian conservatives have a demonstrated consistent plug-in to the moral high ground, I’ll let you know.
So an “axiom of faith” means that you’ve decided something about your god, and that it’s fair game to use it in logical constructs such as the following:
Premise 1: God exists, loves us, wants us to be happy, and wants us to love each other.
Premise 2: If God exists, loves us, wants us to be happy, and wants us to love each other, then God would not have allowed events to transpire to let Trump be elected.
Premise 3: Trump was elected.
Conclusion 1: From Premise 1 and Premise 2, by modus ponens, it is not the that Trump was elected.
Conclusion 2: From Premise 3 and Conclusion 1, by conjunction, Trump both was and wasn’t elected.
Conclusion 2 is a contradiction; one of the premises is therefore false. (Probably Premise 1.)
This is an arbitrary example that I don’t intend to rigorously support the premises of in detail*, but which I present as a demonstration that simply because you take something as axiomatic doesn’t mean it’s immune to disproof; it just means that doing so will rattle your assumptions.
- I’d be perfectly willing to entertain the idea that Trump wasn’t ever elected, and that this has been one prolonged nightmare.
I’m just an ordinary mortal of average intelligence…and I could have arranged this in a whole lot better way than allowing the Nazis to murder several million innocent people.
It’s like…I’m the parent of a kid, and I want to make sure he learns that you don’t play with fire…so I subject him to third-degree burns all up his left arm. That’ll teach him! It might do the trick…but at what a hellish cost.
When God becomes indistinguishable from Satan, he’s doing his job badly.
(Man, I always mix up first and third degree burns. Although I suppose it’s a good thing that I have so little experience with the terms.)
If Satan punishes bad people…isn’t he doing God’s work?
Superb question… If Satan really wanted to monkey with things, he’d do good things to “bad people.” Atheists would win all the lotteries, never have auto accidents, etc., while Christians would suffer the woes of Lot. This would lead a lot of people to leave the church…which, presumably, Satan wants to happen.
If Satan is “part of the plan,” then it is a crummy plan!
(Corollary: if ordinary blokes like us can come up with a better plan, it is not worth calling “divine.” I’m standing for election: vote for me for the new God. I’ll make mistakes…but they’ll be better mistakes than what we read in the Bible.)
It’s like the old joke:
What does the masochist say to the sadist? Beat me, beat me!
What does the sadist say to the masochist?
I won’t.