WHY God?

[Dinsdale]

*Originally posted by Mr. Billy *
**The key concept here is “so far”. It’s not for Polycarp, or Jerry Falwell, or me – or you – to determine what God will do, with regard to the ways and times in which He reveals himself.

You should keep on looking. We’ll keep on trying not to be stumbling blocks for you. And God will be done with you when He’s done with you. Until then, this is all “…so far”.

You shoudn’t go writing yourself out of God’s plan before you quit breathing. **

Believe me, there is not a day that I do not look - for knowledge. Right now I am studying American history and for some time I have been trying to get a beter grasp on various branches of science. And I do some reading on social interactions.

I have, in the past, done quite a bit of study on philosophy and comparative religions, and of course I have a considerable amount of catholicism that was drummed into me. At this stage in my life I am quite content with rational humanism, and don’t forsee that changing. All of the evidence I find supports that, and none is strong enough, alone or in combination, to make me think otherwise.

Why should I seek “God”, and most specifically, why the Christian God? And why not another brand of supernatural such as aliens, ghosts, witches, etc.? If I decide beforehand what I am seeking, there is a good chance that I will interpret whatever I find as supporting my initial hypothesis. I seek only what seems to me to be truth. And that seems to occur in science, without a supreme deity.

It almost seems as if you are setting up a tautology. If I believe in God, I will see the evidence of his existence, and therefore believe in God.

Now God, if he/she/it exists, is certainly in a position to influence my thoughts and actions. He/she/it knows where I’m at, and knows the type of “proof” I find convincing. I can’t drastically change the way my mind works. And if God had some role in creating me and knows everything that is going on, he would know that. A big “I’m here” spelled out across the heavens would certainly be helpful, but he could undoubtably get his message across to me in more subtle ways. While I am a firm believer in the power and frequency of coincidence, he could make coincidences occur such that I would interpret them as something more.

Further, should I perceive evidence that suggests a deity to me, why should I assume it is the Christian God, and not a supernatural manifestation from any other of the world’s religions? You suggest I search for God, but why don’t I go with the numbers (worldwide) and search for buddha or Muhammed?

[Mr.Billy]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Dinsdale *
**

Believe me, there is not a day that I do not look - for knowledge. Right now I am studying American history and for some time I have been trying to get a beter grasp on various branches of science. And I do some reading on social interactions…

**

Great. That’s all that I was advocating. It seemed to me that you had closed off the possibility of anything other than your present conclusions. That seemed like a bad idea to me. After all, if you’re going to be a skeptic, shouldn’t your skepticism extend even as far as your own present conclusions?

**If I decide beforehand what I am seeking, there is a good chance that I will interpret whatever I find as supporting my initial hypothesis.

**

A profoundly true statement. Consistent reasoning is like that, I think. For example:

**I seek only what seems to me to be truth. And that seems to occur in science, without a supreme deity.

**

You presuppose that all truth becomes knowable – exclusively, I gather – through science, and that no reference to a supreme deity will ever be necessary, in order to make sense of Things as science observes them. Accordingly, you are finding that the evidence tends to support your theory.

**Now God, if he/she/it exists, is certainly in a position to influence my thoughts and actions. He/she/it knows where I’m at, and knows the type of “proof” I find convincing. I can’t drastically change the way my mind works. And if God had some role in creating me and knows everything that is going on, he would know that. A big “I’m here” spelled out across the heavens would certainly be helpful, but he could undoubtably get his message across to me in more subtle ways. While I am a firm believer in the power and frequency of coincidence, he could make coincidences occur such that I would interpret them as something more.

**

I believe that God could – and in fact, might – do precisely as you suggest. I just don’t happen to think that the present state of affairs is necessarily any indication of how things will eventually turn out. That’s all that I ever meant to imply in my last post.

**Further, should I perceive evidence that suggests a deity to me, why should I assume it is the Christian God, and not a supernatural manifestation from any other of the world’s religions? You suggest I search for God, but why don’t I go with the numbers (worldwide) and search for buddha or Muhammed? **

I didn’t suggest that you should search for God at all, until you asked a series of questions that led me to believe that you had some interest in doing so. If you don’t, then don’t.

As for which God you ought to search for: You can – and should – do what you think is best. I’m under no illusions that I’m anything other than some guy who likes to hear himself talk.

–B

[Kaje]

My view currently is that belief in God, especially in the standard protestant sense, is an amazing psychological tool. It seems to offer an incredible ammount comfort and relief to people who otherwise might not know where to find it. It allows you to move past or more easily cope with traumatic events, personal shortcomings, and the like.

I used to think this might be evidence for the validity of such a belief. “It works so well, maybe it IS Jesus at work”. I did stop believing this eventually, however, when I came to understand other religions around the world that offered the same consolation. Then it changed even more when I realized that nothing fanciful was required, and that perfectly natural philosophies could offer the same thing too.

So that’s where I stand anyway. I have no problem with people believing there is a God, and can’t completely disregard the notion that there could be. Of course it becomes a different story when people bug the shit out of me but that’s to be expected.

[tourbot]

*Originally posted by Mr. Billy *
**

I don’t get what you’re driving at. **

Then reread your own post which I quoted. You made the claim that with god, you have an objective standard of morality, and without one, you don’t. Or have you changed your mind?

As for the rest, I don’t disagree with you… your subjective experience may make the existence of god seem more likely to you than my experiences make it seem to me. But that doesn’t make it an objective moral standard.

[Searching_For_Truth]

*Originally posted by Oreo *
**

*Originally posted by Lolo *
**
And why, if you don’t, do you feel others need to?

**

My sister, who is a devout Christian, once explained it to me like this: “If you knew the location of the fountain of youth, that could make you young and beautiful and happy for all eternity, wouldn’t you want to tell other people about it, especially the people you love?”

Of course, my response was that I knew perfectly well where the fountain was, I just didn’t believe she was right about its magical powers. **

Anyone whose ever witnessed to me wholeheartedly did so because they loved me, and they genuinely cared about what happened to me. They loved me, their God loved me, and they wanted me to know. It wasn’t an attempt to curb my behavior or make me an automated evangelist, it was a loving gesture.

[DaveW]

Mr. Billy wrote:

It occurs to me that perhaps we have been talking past one another in this discussion, simply because we have begun with radically different starting points. I begin with the presupposition that objective moral law exists and claim to reason from there to the necessity of God’s existence. You, on the other hand, begin with the presupposition that God does not exist. And therefore, there’s a good deal about my presuppositions that seems untenable to you. After all, for you, there is – prima facie – no such thing as non-material existence. (Yes?)

Well, yes and no. Sorry to hack so much of your post, but I think you’re quite right in that we’ve been discussing things without properly defining our starting places. At least, I can see that I haven’t, since you’ve lumped me, a militant agnostic, in with the atheists. The horror!

To me, we’ve been discussing two questions:[ul][li]Is there a diety (of some sort) or not?[*]Is there an objective morality or not?[/ul]To me, these are largely independent questions.[/li]
If a deity exists, that does not necessarily mean that the deity created some sort of objective morality along the lines of, say, the Ten Commandments (just an example). I can easily imagine a diety whose granting of free will to us extended to building our own moralities, and finding, through consensus-building and whatnot, the subjective morality that best serves the majority of us poor humans.

On the other hand, I can imagine an objective morality (even though, as I’m sure I’ve made clear, I don’t believe one exists), but such a morality need not be handed down by any sort of deity. Much the same way that I don’t, in my view of the universe, “need” a deity to learn what the rest mass of some atom is, if an objective morality exists, I don’t think it would be impossible to find through philosophical and/or logical methods.

The only time I can imagine the two questions being dependent on one another is if there is a deity, and that diety has made it so difficult for us to define what is or is not moral that we are required to say, “hey, God! Is this okay?” In such a case, there would have to be an objective morality, and it would be whatever the deity says it is.

If, however, the deity fails to give us the moral codes in clear and absolute terms, for all reasonable contexts, then people are going to make all sorts of subjective judgements about what the deity ‘really’ meant. This is not unlike the situation in real life today.

[walor]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by rjung *

Well, I’m not sure if the process is finished or not. It may not be.

I know what you mean. I thought I’d grown up twenty years ago. I was certain of that then. I was certain about almost everything then.

Now I regard myself as uncertain about most things but considerably wiser… ahh, the difference between wisdom and intelligence.

Vis a vis religion, however, it was simply confronting and accepting the harsh probability that there is no super-omnipotent being somewhere who will watch out for me and make things right. That if I want my destiny to go a certain way, I have to get off my keister and make it happen.

I know from previous threads that you are well-read. Have you read Stephen Covey’s 7 Habits? One of the strong messages that I took from that book was his concept of ‘maturity’.

I think a fair para-phrase is along the lines that true maturity is achieved when we accept the need for ‘inter-dependance’. Whilst we strike out as ‘independant’ beings, we are likely to fall short of our true capabilities. Getting off our butts and doing our own thing is styled as a more immature approach than one which recognises the need for us to work more closely with others to fulfill our destiny.

I know that Stephen is not a Christian. However, the Christian message does call for Christians to submit to another’s will (God) in order to fulfill their destiny. This would be a mature Christian approach.

I don’t know if you have any observations on this.

And the acceptance that the universe will simply continue to go on after I die, and probably not bother to shed a tear in the process. Not very comforting, but more realistic than what religion teaches.

I love the book of Ecclesiastes. I love the wisdom of Soloman.

*Ecclesiastes 2:17 So I hated life, because the work that is done under the sun was grievous to me. All of it is meaningless, a chasing after the wind.

Ecclesiastes 6:12 For who knows what is good for a man in life, during the few and meaningless days he passes through like a shadow? Who can tell him what will happen under the sun after he is gone?

Ecclesiastes 7:15 In this meaningless life of mine I have seen both of these: a righteous man perishing in his righteousness, and a wicked man living long in his wickedness.

Ecclesiastes 9:9 Enjoy life with your wife, whom you love, all the days of this meaningless life that God has given you under the sun-- all your meaningless days. For this is your lot in life and in your toilsome labor under the sun.*

King Soloman had it figured out. Life alone is meaningless. So you could say that the Bible actually supports your assertion. It does present a realistic case… (yes, no?)

The question then is, what do we do about it?

[Liberal]

Why, if you believe in God, do you feel you need to?

Speaking for myself, I’m afraid that if I don’t, I’ll go crazy.

There’s a belief on two levels, intellectual and spiritual. Intellectually, it is as hard for me to deny God’s existence as it is to deny the existence of my computer monitor. Our relationship is manifested daily, hourly, in fact, constantly. He loves me perfectly, and commands me to love others and be perfect. Yet I disobey. Constantly.

And that brings me to belief on a spiritual level. I trust Him, rely on Him, and cling to Him. I have to. If I didn’t, His commandment would haunt me into psychosis.

[Mr.Billy]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by tourbot *
**

As for the rest, I don’t disagree with you… your subjective experience may make the existence of god seem more likely to you than my experiences make it seem to me. But that doesn’t make it an objective moral standard. **

Well…it would. But I think maybe we’re using “morality” to mean two different things.

I’m not suggesting that everyone in the world is ever going to agree about the proper shape and direction of moral philosophy. Clearly, we won’t.

What I’m suggesting is that there exists such a thing as morality itself, which isn’t determined by whether or not everyone agrees about the proper shape and direction of moral philosophy. That’s what I mean by objective moral reality: Certain things are radically, irreducably, just plain wrong (or right), independent of what anyone happens to think about them.

In order for that to be true, it seems to me that there has to be a God, who is – by definition – objectively real. I say that because a moral standard that is founded upon the fixed, non-contingent character of God would also be – by definition – objective.

If there is no God, then all that we can possibly have is moral philosophy. By definition, that has to be a subjective thing, because it isn’t rooted in anything other than changeable, contingent humans, hashing out what kinds of actions we will or won’t accept, at the present time.

This really isn’t so much about the fear of a Godly ass-whipping. (I think some folks may have the impression that it is.) My point is not that Jesus is coming back and he’s really pissed and you’d better all get on the right page in a hurry. It’s about how it can be possible to talk about things like motherly love, or the Holocaust as non-negotiably right or wrong. Understand that I’m not trying to convince you that there is such a thing as morality itself. Lots of people don’t think there is, and I’m ok with that.

–B

[Dinsdale]

Thanks to everyone for the interesting posts, and especially to Polycarp and Mr. Billy for their honest and thoughtful responses to my questions.

Not sure I have too much more to add at this point. I wonder if I am so immersed into rationality, that it would take an overwhelming amount of proof to convince me at this point. I guess I can always hope that if there is a deity, He is sufficiently benevolent such that He will judge me based on the life I led, rather than on my weaknesses which prevented me from believing in Him.

Just wanted to respond to one statement:

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Mr. Billy *
**

You presuppose that all truth becomes knowable – exclusively, I gather – through science, and that no reference to a supreme deity will ever be necessary, in order to make sense of Things as science observes them. Accordingly, you are finding that the evidence tends to support your theory.
**

I am completely comfortable understanding that there are things that are currently unknown and may forever remain “unknowable” either through science or any other means. What occurred before the big bang, for example.

I just don’t see any need to believe in a God to explain those areas that are unknown/unknowable. I know this has been done many times, but I guess I have a two-tiered problem with what I consider most peoples’ religious beliefs.

-First, I don’t see the need to suppose a deity to explain things that are not explainable by science. The more I learn about science, the better job it seems to do explaining things. And I see major problems with many of the arguments for God.
I do not see a need for a “God of the gaps.” Nor do I believe most believers characterize their God in this manner. But if you do not believe in an overaching purpose, it should not surprise you that we are unable to to understand everything about the universe. There is no reason to believe the universe developed in a manner such that it would be ultimately understood by our species. Nor is there a reason to believe that our species gained an evolutionary advantage by developing such capacity. The universe did not develop as it did to be understood by us, nor did we evolve as we did to understand the nature and origins of the universe. I’m not sure I’m being clear about this. But it sort of seems that a lot of folk who believe in religion have an underlying desire that everything be understandable sort of like a story - starting with a beginning and then proceeding through steps towards an end. And I don’t believe nature necessarily acts that way.

-Second, even if I do wish to believe in a supreme being that explains what science cannot, I don’t understand how people can decide upon the attributes of that being. If there were a God who had revealed Himself to certain folk, why would he not have revealed himself similarly to folk worldwide?

I realize that these questions may seem extremely basic - even juvenile. But I am 40 years old, with a post-grad degree, have been married for 16 years and have 3 kids, and I still can’t get past them. If I can’t get past these basic questions, I certainly can’t begin to address specific issues distinguishing between various religions/sects/denominations.

I’m just trying to live as good a life as I can. I know I fall short of what I could do, but I do not require a belief in God to tell me that or to help me identify ways I can improve.

[Mr.Billy]

*Originally posted by DaveW *
**If a deity exists, that does not necessarily mean that the deity created some sort of objective morality along the lines of, say, the Ten Commandments (just an example). I can easily imagine a diety whose granting of free will to us extended to building our own moralities, and finding, through consensus-building and whatnot, the subjective morality that best serves the majority of us poor humans.

**

That’s a very Oprah Winfrey kind of God.

But what I have been suggesting is that God doesn’t create morality. That’s still subjective morality, since God could have made up a different kind of morality than the one we have now. Morality simply is what it is, because God is who he is. Moral law necessarily reflects the fixed, non-contingent character of God.

That last 'graph may be unnecessary, but it seems to me that there’s a distinction to be drawn. I’m not sure it was apparent previously.

On the other hand, I can imagine an objective morality (even though, as I’m sure I’ve made clear, I don’t believe one exists), but such a morality need not be handed down by any sort of deity. Much the same way that I don’t, in my view of the universe, “need” a deity to learn what the rest mass of some atom is, if an objective morality exists, I don’t think it would be impossible to find through philosophical and/or logical methods.

Yeah. We just disagree about whether or not there is such a thing as objective morality. But I don’t blame you for rejecting the existence of the kind of objective morality that you describe above. It’s not convincing to me to posit the existence of morality that is simultaneously objective and suspended in midair. Something has to make it so, or else we may as well just admit that we’re making it up.

**If, however, the deity fails to give us the moral codes in clear and absolute terms, for all reasonable contexts, then people are going to make all sorts of subjective judgements about what the deity ‘really’ meant. This is not unlike the situation in real life today. **

It’s really pretentious of me to be self-referential like this, but it has begun to dawn on me that we might be using “morality” in two different ways. I have a post just a little ways back upstream, where I talk about a distinction between moral philosophy and morality itself. If you can possibly stand one more word of this stuff, give it a read. It may help to draw further distinctions. Or something.

The longer this goes on, the more I begin to suspect that Theists and non-Theists (because there’s atheists and there’s agnostics :)) have startlingly little common ground on which to talk about this stuff. Is that too pessimistic?

–B

[walor]

Hi Dinsadale. Hope that I’m not butting in here.

*Originally posted by Dinsdale *
I realize that these questions may seem extremely basic - even juvenile. But I am 40 years old, with a post-grad degree, have been married for 16 years and have 3 kids, and I still can’t get past them. If I can’t get past these basic questions, I certainly can’t begin to address specific issues distinguishing between various religions/sects/denominations.

Hmmm… I’m 51 with a post-grad degree. I’ve been married to my present wife for 18 years (My first wife died after nine years of marriage). I have four kids. I didn’t get to the same questions until I was 47, let alone past them!

I’m still coming to terms with the fact that although I have made the leap of faith, there are more questions than answers in my head now, than before I took the leap. And yet, my faith grows stronger daily.

It’s a conundrum… a paradox… a mystery.

I’m just trying to live as good a life as I can.

That was my approach until four years ago. Funnily enough, it still is now. It’s just that my ‘definition’ (bad word choice) of good has changed somewhat.

I know I fall short of what I could do, but I do not require a belief in God to tell me that or to help me identify ways I can improve.

I know that I fall short too… but I am content that I have found the best teacher (IMHO) to help me along the way.

pax

[Dinsdale]

Hey, walor. No worry bout butting in. I directed my comments to those 2 mainly cause this thread seemed to be heading in a few different directions.

Glad to hear you are happy where you are, and where you see yourself going.

I try to remind myself to not become rigid in my mindset and overly resistent to change. So I guess it is possible that at some point I will change my mind on this issue. Seems pretty unlikely, tho. But heck, there was a time I hated brussels sprouts, and now they are among my favorite foods!

[walor]

*Originally posted by Dinsdale *
But heck, there was a time I hated brussels sprouts, and now they are among my favorite foods!

Me too…

I just wonder what else I’m going to end up ‘converted’ to. Sprouts today… tomorrow… raw fish…

Hmmm… find it difficult to imagine that one but I have been proved wrong before.

[Mr.Billy]

I believe that Brussels Sprouts are objectively wrong.

–B

[rjung]

*Originally posted by Mr. Billy *
I believe that Brussels Sprouts are objectively wrong.

They turn your urine green. That’s gotta be worth a few brownie points, yes?

[tracer]

All vegetables are inherently evil.

[walor]

What about ‘Deviled Eggs’?

[tourbot]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Mr. Billy *
**

If there is no God, then all that we can possibly have is moral philosophy. By definition, that has to be a subjective thing, because it isn’t rooted in anything other than changeable, contingent humans, hashing out what kinds of actions we will or won’t accept, at the present time.
**

But if there is a god, all we can possibly have (or all anyone has shown so far) is a subjective experience of it. By definition, that has to be a subjective thing.

A god may exist, and may be the source of an objective moral will, but since humans have no objective evidence of god or his “moral will”, any morality that purports to be derived from same is pure subjective conjecture. The existence or nonexistence of god is irrelevant to the formation of an objective human morality. (Based on your argument, can’t form one without him, but can’t form one with him either.)

[Mr.Billy]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by tourbot *
**

A god may exist, and may be the source of an objective moral will, but since humans have no objective evidence of god or his “moral will”, any morality that purports to be derived from same is pure subjective conjecture. The existence or nonexistence of god is irrelevant to the formation of an objective human morality. (Based on your argument, can’t form one without him, but can’t form one with him either.) **

Someone else made a similar comment earlier. I can’t remember who. I disagree.

It seems to me that the question of whether or not morality is fully and inerrantly apparent to any of us (moral philosophy) is irrelevant to the objective existence of morality (morality itself). We believe in the objective existence of all kinds of things to which we do not have immediate, unfettered access. Madagascar, for example.

Like I have been saying, though: The objective existence of moral reality is something that I presuppose, based upon my own experiences and intuitions, which are not epistemically binding for you. I’m not trying to convince you to take my position. Lots of people don’t, and I understand that.

If you don’t think that there’s any such thing as objective moral reality, then you should definitely stick to your guns. But neither have you convinced me that the existence of such a thing is in any sense logically precluded.

I think I’m all talked out on this one. Thanks for the interaction.

–B