My friend UnkleE and I have been having a wide-ranging discussion on several topics related to Christianity that ultimately come down to epistemology, or how Christians know God’s will. The discussion began in my last post, which critiqued a doctrine common to more moderate circles within Christianity. UnkleE had more to say on the subject than could reasonably fit within a comment, so he decided to do his own post in response, which is worth reading. We conversed a bit within that comment thread, where I said:
The President of the US and his spokespeople now regularly say things that are factually untrue. Yet plenty of his supporters are content to ignore reputable sources and only listen to the sources that they want to agree with. Where do you go from there?
It seems to me that the view you have of Christianity is similar. Why does the New Testament speak so much about false teachers, if it’s perfectly fine to get your beliefs from private revelation? If Paul and Hymenaeus have a disagreement, perhaps Paul is the one who’s wrong? Or maybe both of them are right, simultaneously? How can one use scripture to “teach, reprove, and correct” in such a system?
In the end, isn’t such a religion just anarchy? How can there be such a thing as “truth” when each person’s version is just as good as someone else’s? At least as an atheist, I can point to my understanding of reality and the physical world to try to reach a consensus with others. And if they can provide data that invalidates some position I hold, then I can change. But if I took my own random thoughts and feelings as revelation from the supreme creator of the universe, how could I ever be convinced of anything else?
Once again, this opened a big topic that was better suited to a full post, rather than a comment, so UnkleE offered his response here. And as my reply to that post grew and grew, I realized that I needed to offer it as a post as well. What follows will reference and borrow quotes from UnkleE’s latest post.
What Is the Gospel?
Under a section called “Another Gospel?” UnkleE gave this introduction:
Nate references Galations 1:6-9, which warns of accepting another gospel. But what does Paul mean by “gospel” (or “good news”)?
He then listed out 5 main points that he views as central to what the gospel is:
- Jesus, the “son of God”, lived and taught about the kingdom of God.
- He died to deal with human sin (how that happens is very much up for debate!).
- Jesus was resurrected and so conquered death.
- We need to change our thinking, turn away from behaviours that displease God, and seek forgiveness.
- Our new way of life should include loving God, loving neighbour, and even loving our enemies.
But it seems to me that the New Testament spends time referring to false doctrines that are ancillary to those 5 points. The entire book of Galatians has Paul accusing the Galatians of turning their backs on the gospel and trying to follow the Law of Moses, when it really just sounds like they were trying to follow both:
Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.
— Gal 5:2-6
To me, that sounds like something that we’d view as a matter of personal preference, today, certainly not something that would qualify as a “different gospel.” And look at 2 Cor 13:5-10:
Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you fail to meet the test! I hope you will find out that we have not failed the test. But we pray to God that you may not do wrong—not that we may appear to have met the test, but that you may do what is right, though we may seem to have failed. For we cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth. For we are glad when we are weak and you are strong. Your restoration is what we pray for. For this reason I write these things while I am away from you, that when I come I may not have to be severe in my use of the authority that the Lord has given me for building up and not for tearing down.
We don’t know the specifics of what Paul is criticizing here, but if these individuals were still present in the congregation to see Paul’s letter, then it’s likely they still held to the basic principles that UnkleE outlined above. What else could they be lacking that would make them “fail the test”?
In 2 John 7, it was considered heresy to question whether or not Christ had actually come in the flesh (like docetism, I guess):
For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.
To me, this seems kind of minor in many ways, though it was a huge deal back then. If someone still believed that Christ was the son of God and brought salvation in some way, should it have mattered if they didn’t fully understand how that happened? But 2 John shows that some early Christians had a huge problem with the doctrine.
2 Tim 2:16-19 talks about another form of false teaching:
But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened. They are upsetting the faith of some. But God’s firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity.”
To me, this also seems like a minor quibble that runs outside the principles UnkleE laid out as the core of Christianity. Again, exactly what people believe about how/when the resurrection works, or even exactly what the writer means by “resurrection” here seems minor if an individual still believes Christ is the avenue for salvation, etc. Incidentally, there’s an interesting discussion of this passage here.
And if God is unchanging, it’s hard to overlook some of the judgments he supposedly handed out in the Old Testament, like killing Nadab and Abihu for not getting their sacrificial fire in the right way. Killing Achan and his entire family when he didn’t follow the command about not looting Jericho. Honestly, there are tons of OT examples, and I won’t take up any more space with going through them. But they each show how particular God was in seemingly minor things. Now, I agree that most of the New Testament argues that such legalism is no longer necessary. But I think the passages I listed above show that it still isn’t just free rein, especially if God’s character is unchanging (Psalm 102:25-27; Malachi 3:6; James 1:17).
The New Testament gives parameters about divorce and remarriage that are pretty strict. In Matthew 19:9, Jesus is speaking, and he says:
And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.
That’s a rigorous standard that most Christians don’t really apply today, in that a large number of Christian marriages are actually adulterous, according to Jesus. Marriage and remarriage does not fall within the 5 precepts of the gospel that UnkleE laid out, but it still seems like it would be a big deal. After all, we’re told in 1 Cor 6:9-10 that adulterers can’t “inherit the kingdom of God.” What does that mean, exactly? I think it’s referring to salvation itself, and I think 1 Cor 5 bears that out. In that passage, Paul is telling the Corinthians to cast out the member among them who is sleeping with his father’s wife “so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.”
Apparently, this Christian was in danger of losing his salvation if he didn’t repent of his wrongdoing. And to go back to 1 Cor 6 for a minute, we see that far more than just adulterers would be in danger of the same fate:
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
That’s quite a laundry list. Those sins might fall within the 4th and 5th points from UnkleE’s list, so does this include married couples who didn’t divorce their previous spouses for infidelity? For consistency’s sake, I would think that they would have to be included, yet very few churches make an issue of it.
In the end, I think when Paul uses terms like “the gospel,” he’s not always strictly speaking about the 5 basic points that UnkleE outlined. I think he’s also talking about any specific instructions that he (or other apostles) laid out in their epistles. Yes, passages like Romans 14 and 1 Cor 8-10 talk about issues that individual Christians may have differences of opinion over, but that’s because those were issues that no specific instruction had been given about. But today, there are so many issues, like divorce and remarriage, homosexuality, and women’s roles in the church that are considered minor by moderates today. And this is where the idea of authority comes into play. How do they justify their positions on these things?
Principles Not Rules
UnkleE goes on to argue that the New Testament focuses more on principles of how to live versus hard and fast rules. I do agree that it focuses more on principles than the Old Testament did, but I think the passages we’ve already looked at show that hard and fast rules still played a part.
UnkleE offers the following supporting points:
We serve God not according to a written set of rules, but guided by the Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:6, Romans 7:6). Note that he uses as his example in the latter case nothing less than one of the Ten Commandments!
But I don’t think these 2 passages really illustrate UnkleE’s point. He makes it sound as though Paul is saying that written sets of rules no longer apply, but that’s not at all what he’s saying. He’s specifically talking about the Old Law (the Mosaic Law) in those passages, and UnkleE and I already agree that Paul argues the Old Law (including the 10 Commandments) has served its purpose and is no longer binding to Christians. That doesn’t mean there’s no longer any kind of written law — what about all the teachings in the New Testament, including the gospel?!
We can legitimately hold different views on moral issues. Paul gives several examples, some of them significant issues in his day – the eating of meat that had been offered to pagan idols (1 Corinthians 10:23-30), and the keeping of rules about Sabbath days and “unclean” foods (Romans 14:1-23). But he says quite definitely (Romans 14:13): “Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another.”
But as we saw above, these passages are dealing with issues about which there was no direction given in the New Testament. They were true matters of personal conscience. Paul does not give permission to make these same kinds of judgments on things like divorce and remarriage. And while Paul says that they shouldn’t judge one another about these kinds of things, 1 Cor 5 talks about how they’re supposed to judge the actions of fellow Christians.
UnkleE’s third supporting point is:
Therefore, Paul’s conclusion on even important matters of behaviour is that we are free to decide (1 Corinthians 10:23), we should leave the judgment to God (Romans 14:4) and it is not rules but faith that will decide, for whatever is not done in faith is wrong (Romans 14:23) and all should be done to God’s glory (1 Corinthians 10:31).
But again, all of the passages here come exclusively from 1 Cor 10 and Romans 14, which discuss issues that are merely matters of personal preference.
The Holy Spirit
This is really where my biggest concerns lie. UnkleE has this to say about it:
A key fact, which many christians as well as critics can forget, is that christians believe we have been “given” the Spirit of God. Again, I don’t pretend to fully understand how this works, but it is clearly taught in scripture. Each believer has the help of the Holy Spirit in following Jesus in our lives and – crucially for this discussion – in guiding us to truth.
The Spirit is God, which means he is above the Bible, not lesser!
This is exactly what I was trying to get at in my initial questions to UnkleE. If the guidance of the Holy Spirit can trump scripture, how can any position ever be tested? If a man is married, but strongly believes that God wants him to be with his next door neighbor, who’s to say he’s wrong? Sure, the Bible contradicts his feelings, but the Holy Spirit has authority over the Bible. Yes, common sense contradicts his desire, but “God’s ways are higher than man’s.”
UnkleE also says this:
This merits a longer discussion than I can give now (but will post on soon), but we are told that the Holy Spirit will guide us into truth (John 16:13), so we can even know God’s will for us (Romans 12:2). We see examples of the Spirit guiding the believers in Acts (e.g. Acts 11:1-18, 13:1-3, 16:6-10). But we do, I believe, need to ask (James 1:5, Matthew 7:7-8).
So far from being “random thoughts”, if we pray, and take the precautions that the Bible gives us, we can have faith that God guides us (not just me, but his whole church) through his Spirit into true understandings – not infallibly, but steadily over time.
But to me, such a system looks exactly like “random thoughts.” How could anyone tell the difference between his own thoughts and the Holy Spirit? How could Paul rail against false teachers and false gospels if guidance from the Holy Spirit carries more weight than scripture? If 1000 different Christians all believe God has given them personal revelations that happen to conflict, there’s no way to sort among them to separate the true revelation from all the false ones.
In effect, it seems to me that such a religion can end up saying everything, which basically means it says nothing.
One More Thing
I know this post is painfully long, but I wanted to add one more thing. In his closing, UnkleE makes this point:
I suggest we should always start with what the scriptures say and expert knowledge about what it means – what would this or that passage have said to the people of the day, what do the words actually mean and how do experts understand them? We must read more than one viewpoint.
Then we must pray, consider, wait if necessary, and see if we receive guidance, and see how the Spirit is working and leading the body of believers as a whole. Our own experience and thoughts (if we are allowing God to transform our thinking) will help us.
Isn’t this exactly what we, as atheists, do as well? I’m quite familiar with the Bible (more so than many believers that I know), and I try to pay attention to what Biblical scholars have to say. I consider more than one point of view. I don’t pray, but I used to. And I believe that I’m open to being wrong — I’m even open to guidance. And I would love for God to give me some kind of message, personally. Used to plead for it, in fact. What else is there for me to do?
Closing
Let me stress that I really appreciate UnkleE’s willingness to discuss these things with me. As he knows, I was raised within a very fundamentalist version of Christianity that believed in biblical inerrancy. UnkleE has a very different perspective, and it’s difficult for me to fully understand it. My arguments here are how I try to come to terms with his beliefs. If I’ve missed some obvious answer to some of my questions, it’s solely due to ignorance, not obstinacy.
Finding Truth 
How many more young men will blow themselves up in the middle of a crowded market or other public venue all in the name of their invisible ghost god before society stops condoning this superstitious way of thinking?
—Ghosts do NOT “guide” human beings to do anything. Superstitions about ghosts guide human beings to cause massive suffering and harm.
—Invisible beings are NOT real. Every time someone suggests they are, we should call them out on it.
LikeLike
Gary, you have just reached the crux of the matter, I believe. It doesn’t matter if someone tells us their god only says positive things to them, it’s important to point out that their invisible ‘buddy’ is actually their imagination. For some, it takes awhile to sink in. Look how long this thread is . . . 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
You are so right, Carmen.
The next time the Baptists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, or UnkleE comes to our door to share the “Good News” about their invisible friend Jesus, I suggest we demand that they put their money where their mouth is: “Tell your friend Jesus to levitate my coffee table ten feet off the floor, right this second, to prove he actually exists. If he can’t or won’t do it, take your superstitious nonsense and get the hell out of here! Your superstitions are the fuel that perpetuates the religious hate and violence in the world.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
But don’t you understand , Carmen, Unklee sees himself as some sort of specifically chosen individual as he considers his heart is open to revelation from his god, Yahweh.
That Yahweh, allowed you and every other devout believer to walk away from discovering this revelation points to some obvious flaw in your approach.
Of course even with free will this still begs the question as to why, after innumerable heartfelt pleas to Yahweh did you and all the other believers of the myriad religions on the planet let alone the 40,000 Christian sects and not least those on this thread who never receive/d Divine Revelation or guidance from the Holy Spirit?
Realistically there are a finite number of reasons for this:
For example:
1. Yahweh decided you ( and others) did not make the grade for some reason which will never be revealed – he moves in mysterious ways, after all.
2. Yahweh is simply a capricious S.O.B.
3. Unklee truly is quite special and one of a minority of Special Believers for reasons unknown.
4. It is all a crock and merely some form of ego-fueled minor delusion.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well, since you put it that way. . .I’m going with #4. 🙂
Which sounds like I’m taking a pot-shot at Eric. That’s the thing, though. Very well-intentioned, sincere, GOOD, intelligent people truly believe there’s something where there’s nothing. It really is baffling.
(I must clarify that I was a devout church-goer and very active on committees, not necessarily a devout believer. I also take full responsibility for people thinking me a hypocrite)
LikeLiked by 1 person
After all said and done # 4 does seem the logical option.
I am going to presume that during your time as a pew-warmer you believed in something , yes?
LikeLike
That’s the thing, Ark. I’m not sure, now, that I ever did. I think I’ve said this before, but I went to church because it was expected of me and we thought (hubby and I) that it was our responsibility as parents to make religion a part of their life experiences. Others have discussed the social aspect of church, and in this very rural area there’s no question that it’s a strong pull. Most people ‘belong’ to a denomination of some sort in this area. I should say that most people belonged to a denomination when we were raising our children. Now, not so much. In fact, most churches are struggling to keep their doors open for that reason — younger people just aren’t interested in religion (for the most part, it seems). One by one, all four of our offspring – as they got older – dropped all interest in anything church-related. We do have one who is taking her kids to the same church we were part of for over 30 years, but I think she’s got the same idea as we had. (She also loves to sing, and is in the Choir) She thinks it’s important for the kids to get some exposure to church. (These would be the same children who said, at Christmastime, “Don’t give Nannie that Jesus book – she won’t read it!”) I have never said anything against religion to them, mind you. Bit of a dichotomy with me, as you can probably guess.
LikeLiked by 2 people
UnkleE,
I’m so glad we’ve gotten to this! In fact, I haven’t read any other comments yet — just wanted to go ahead and type out my thoughts to you. I feel like we’re getting very close to some of the core reasons that you and I see some of these things so differently, despite having so many other things in common.
I’m going to quote you a lot, rather than just refer to the numbers you gave. I think this will help keep the context.
I’m good with that. It’s probably a point we could discuss a bit further, but I think it’s ancillary to the core stuff here, and I get the feeling that you agree.
To me, the portrayal of God (in both testaments) does result in an unfair being, especially considering his hiddenness. Why do you reject that by definition? Are you saying it’s something you won’t consider at all, or do you mean something else?
And again, I think for people to reasonably do that, there shouldn’t be questions about whether or not God exists and what he wants.
I was with you until the part I emphasized. I just don’t agree with this at all.
Let’s say a woman is pregnant and wants to ride a roller coaster, but she finds out that it could cause major health issues. Is it better for her to never find out? The thing is, once she’s learned this, it only allows her to make a better choice. She could still choose to ride it, or she may not. Either way, she’s making a free choice based on the information.
If we withhold the information from her, and she rides the coaster and loses the pregnancy, does this mean she was unfit or a bad person in some way? Of course not. She simply didn’t know the risks.
If your argument that knowing God exists and knowing what he wants would rob people of free will, how can you explain any of the stories in the Bible? Jesus was nothing special — he simply knew God too intimately, so was basically a robot that only did what it was programmed to do. No big deal. Anyone could have been a “man after God’s own heart,” since David was only so obedient because of his knowledge of God. Same with Moses. And what’s so special about Paul’s conversion, if it took divine revelation to convince him? And then, how can you explain the missteps that some of these people made? Moses, David, Solomon, Peter — how did they manage to “sin” against God, despite being so familiar with him and his desires?
Not only does the idea fall apart logically, but the very religion that people are trying to defend with this argument is a witness against it.
Here’s the difference. We can point to evidence of the universe. We can point to evidence of stars, planets, and life itself. We know all of those things exist as much as we can know anything. Exactly how they all came to exist is not completely known. Maybe one day it will be.
Where is God? Can you point to him? Can I talk to him? Will he talk back??
LikeLiked by 1 person
“you’re still relying upon an idea that a deity is communicating with people”
Hi Sirius, is this what has been bothering you all along? Yes, I can happily confirm, I believe a very specific deity does indeed communicate with people in the ways I have outlined. Were you in any doubt that was what I believed?
LikeLike
Hey UnkleE,
Thanks for letting me know I’ve been getting it right all along. Why did you tell me I was misunderstanding you?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Sirius, you asked me a lot of questions, but never about that. If that’s what you thought all along, then you got that right. But a lot of other things you said showed you didn’t properly understand those matters. But if you’re happy now, I’m happy.
LikeLike
Hey UnkleE,
“But a lot of other things you said showed you didn’t properly understand those matters.”
If we’re being completely accurate here, I’ve said things you feel show a misunderstanding of what you’re saying. That’s a conclusion that might not be fully justifiable under actual facts.
Looking over our conversation, you really only allege I misunderstand you when I make conclusions based off the concepts you’ve given me. It’s almost as if you can’t believe a reasonable mind might draw different inferences from a given situation. Although I draw conclusions you might not agree with, it doesn’t necessarily follow that I (or others) misunderstand you.
On top of that, other people here have independently levied similar conclusions to mine about what you have had to say. One point I’ve been making frequently, for example, is that you still haven’t articulated anything which has overcome Nate’s original points. While it’s theoretically possible several independent people can be mistaken about what you’re saying, it’s more likely that you’re mistaken about what we’re saying.
That also bears out in our exchange as well. You took one statement of mine and addressed it out of context. You’ve flat out stated in one comment that you can’t understand what I’m saying. And you’ve also on occasion addressed superfluous issues I never raised (like early on when you wondered if I was asking about you hearing voices).
I invite you to consider the possibility that I and others can understand what you’re saying and give honest, considered feedback. If I’m right, it doesn’t mean anything more profound than you should probably spend more time thinking about your worldview.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hi Nate,
I’m glad you’re glad, 🙂 and I agree that this is good to discuss. I have bolded three questions in my response that I think would help us discuss this matter. Thanks.
”To me, the portrayal of God (in both testaments) does result in an unfair being, especially considering his hiddenness. Why do you reject that by definition? Are you saying it’s something you won’t consider at all, or do you mean something else?”
We are discussing the alleged hiddenness of the christian God, based on the collective experience of people. The christian God is defined as being good, gracious, etc, so any argument that makes him out to be unfair is arguing against a different God. i.e. you have to show that hiddenness is incompatible with a fair God.
If you want to make a different argument, that the God of the Bible is unfair, then we can have that discussion, but it is a different discussion. That’s all I meant.
”I was with you until the part I emphasized. I just don’t agree with this at all.”
I guess I have two questions here. (1) What do you think God (if he exists) is trying to do in creating the human race? (2) Do you agree that lack of sufficient freedom is contrary to God’s goals? I think discussing your answers to those two questions might reveal something helpful.
”If your argument that knowing God exists and knowing what he wants would rob people of free will ….“
But I didn’t say that. I said we need some knowledge but we need freedom as well. I think the world is a balance between those two things. The thing we need to first establish is whether you think there needs to be a balance between those two and you just disagree where the balance actually is, or whether you don’t think there needs to be a balance at all.
”Here’s the difference. We can point to evidence of the universe. We can point to evidence of stars, planets, and life itself. We know all of those things exist as much as we can know anything. Exactly how they all came to exist is not completely known. Maybe one day it will be.”
There are plenty of other differences – the universe is made of carbon and other stuff, God is not; the universe is made, God is not; the universe has no feelings, but God does; etc. Differences are meaningless unless they are relevant to the question in hand. Our ability to see the universe but not God is irrelevant to the particular question I asked, which was: why are you unconcerned about not understanding a couple of really BIG issues, yet so concerned about not understanding this smaller issue, especially as I have a hypothesis to explain it?
There is a principle that says that the truth of a hypothesis is tested by how much of the evidence it explains. A hypothesis that cannot explain significant evidence is weaker than one which can.
So perhaps I can ask you another question please – do you accept that principle?
”Where is God? Can you point to him? Can I talk to him? Will he talk back??”
Outside this physical universe.
No, I can only point to things inside this physical universe.
Yes. (You can even try it! 🙂 )
Sometimes. (You may be surprised.)
Thanks.
LikeLike
Hi Sirius,
Right through this discussion, you have been asking me lots of questions and I assumed you wanted accurate honest answers, which I tried to give you. So when you said things that showed you were not understanding my answers correctly, I explained that to you, not to put you down or enter into some competition with you, but simply so you might understand correctly. After all, I know what I think and you don’t, that’s why (presumably) you were asking me. I was not arguing any points with you, just answering your questions.
There were times when I couldn’t understand you either, and several times I pointed that out too, asking you to re-state your question. Other times you pointed that out to me, and each time I apologised and tried to correct my understanding of your questions, and answer them accordingly.
But your latest comment seems to have interpreted that process of discussion, misunderstanding and correction as something deliberate, accusatory and competitive. I’m sorry you feel that way, and I’m really not interested in pursuing that line of thinking.
It now seems to me (especially in light of your previous comment ”you’re still relying upon an idea that a deity is communicating with people” when I thought that was what we had been discussing all along) that we have unfortunately been talking at cross purposes right from the start. So perhaps it is a good idea to give up while we are still on speaking terms. Do you agree? Thanks.
LikeLike
Hey UnkleE,
For whatever it is worth, I’m sorry you feel that way too.
My goal here was to have a discussion regarding the issues you raised in your post and in Nate’s post. Since this is a public blog, a secondary goal was to have a discussion people could follow and benefit from. Critical to this idea of a good discussion is the concept that people can fully and thoroughly examine the best points to be made on either side of an issue.
At the risk of sounding repetitive, I’m not here to change anyone’s mind or “win” a debate. Admittedly, I am getting at some really tough issues in my line of questioning. I didn’t know if you’d have an answer that would be different from other Christians who have expressed thoughts similar to yours. In fact, that’s why I brought up the issues of divine mystery real early on in my comments. It seemed like that’s where your thinking pointed, but since you kept discussing I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt in case I might have been mistaken.
But because other people might be reading this – Christians, atheists, and anyone else who comes here – I needed to also be pretty clear on the issue of misunderstandings from my perspective. There are many different people saying many different things here, and if you read them before getting to me I’d understand the confusion. Quite frankly, there are many other reasons why the discussion has not been as efficient as it might have been, but them’s the breaks as they say ’round my parts. Coincidentally, there’s no real reason to apologize for misunderstandings (because they’re unintentional).
I don’t think this discussion has been for nothing. As long as anyone gets a better grasp of something than before they started, I think the effort is worth it. Once again, I’m not doing this to try to be right. The concepts of revelation from the Christian deity have been expressed to me and to many other people. Some people might agree that this happens, and they might be looking for better ways to conduct themselves accordingly. Other people might doubt that this happens, and they might be looking for a way to express that doubt. If it’s important to them, I think they should be given the best tools with which to investigate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Sirius, thanks for your response. I agree with most of what you say here in terms of approach. It just seemed more and more to be like TS Eliot’s observation:
“Between the idea and the reality …. falls the shadow.”
So I think that’s a good time to stop. Thanks for your courtesy.
LikeLike
Howdy UnkleE,
Okay, we can table that for another discussion then. Because I definitely think the God of the Bible is unfair, based on his portrayal. The qualities ascribed to him versus the behaviors he exhibits are contradictory, in my opinion. But I’m okay letting that point slide for now.
I’m not sure how I would answer either of those questions, but I also think they would take us further away from the topic at hand. You believe that God exists, and we both agree that he’s hidden, though I think he’s more hidden than you do. Either way, he’s obviously hidden enough that people can’t agree on who he is or if he exists. That’s pretty hidden.
You believe there’s a connection between his hiddenness and our free will, but I don’t see that connection. Furthermore, the Bible doesn’t seem to back up such a connection, either. It’s full of people who disobey God despite having firsthand, unquestionable experiences of him. To me, it seems like you need to establish this connection a bit more. In what way does knowing about God rob us of freedom?
Not relevant? Come on… that seems a little obtuse to me. We have to start with a greatest common denominator, and putting aside solipsism, I’d say our denominator is the existence of physical reality. You’re trying to explain its existence by pointing to something that we also can’t explain, but whose existence we can’t even verify. To me, that seems like a useless explanation. At least “I don’t know” has the merit of being honest and only accepting things for which we have evidence.
A hypothesis also needs to be testable before we really start giving it weight. And when it creates its own problems, that’s even worse.
LikeLike
@Nate
Unklee seems to be using a variation of the classic god-of-the-gaps argument here and his presuppositional bias stands out like a sore thumb.
From where I sit it appears impossible to reason with this approach because his faith alone maintains his position as being immutable and thus, no further evidence is required.
The sheer arrogance of this position is highlighted even more when we take into consideration that you once held the exact same position, and this brings us back to the fact he is obliged to acknowledge that you ( and likely every deconvert) were never a True Christian/Believer.
I for one would like him to answer his own question:
1) What do you think God (if he exists) is trying to do in creating the human race?
I beleive the answer will tell you practically everything you need to know about his position..
LikeLike
G’day Nate,
”I’m not sure how I would answer either of those questions, but I also think they would take us further away from the topic at hand.”
I think they are critical. You are criticising God (should he exist) for not behaving in a certain way, but you haven’t indicated why God “should” behave that way.
”he’s obviously hidden enough that people can’t agree on who he is or if he exists”
A lot more people believe God does exist than that he doesn’t. Obviously they cannot agree on many things about him, but the attributes of God established in the standard philosophical arguments are accepted by well over 50% of the world. So that’s hardly hidden.
”Not relevant? Come on… that seems a little obtuse to me.”
Obtuse? I’m reminded of The Shawshank Redemption! 🙂
The only differences that matter are the ones relating to the question in hand. Here the question is a principle in philosophy which isn’t affected by the points you raise.
”A hypothesis also needs to be testable before we really start giving it weight. And when it creates its own problems, that’s even worse.”
Again, you haven’t answered a crucial question.
So let me take a different tack. The correct way to test an argument is to actually state it in a formal logical argument. I would like to see you state your hiddenness argument in that way and then briefly justify the premises. I think that will open up the matters we disagree on.
Until then, I can reasonably say I don’t have an argument to answer. Thanks.
LikeLike
Oh. My.
All this back-and-forth to end up with Eric saying – essentially – “My thinking/conclusions are superior to yours, Nate.” Words, words, words to explain why some people don’t have to prove there’s something where there’s nothing, just believe .
😦
LikeLiked by 3 people
Right-on, Carmen! Just believe and all will be made clear — the ongoing refrain of those who just know there’s something “out there.”
If only the rest of the world would believe and stop being so sensible!
*sigh*
LikeLike
Unklee is the King of Apologetic Sleaze, who has a quite disgusting approach to dealing with non-believers.
Fortunately, his tactics were sussed long ago and are as transparent and vacuous as his arguments.
LikeLike
UnkleE, I think you know that I have a great deal of respect and genuine affection for you, but to be completely honest, I feel like your last two comments are trying to obscure the conversation, not clarify it. As I understand it, you’ve said that God remain hidden (at least to some degree), because to do otherwise would violate our free will. I’ve stated that I think the logic of that position falls apart, and even the Bible itself is full of examples that contradict it. I feel like the subsequent points and questions you’ve raised are efforts to avoid dealing with that clear matter. Perhaps I’ve misunderstood, but that’s how it currently seems to me. Nevertheless, if you’d rather not go down that particular road, I understand. Totally up to you.
LikeLike
I see the ‘hiddenness’ argument as a way of rationalizing absence.
Given there are multiple religions that are mutually exclusive, it would be really helpful if the creator could be a bit less hidden and at least clarify which of the religions ‘he’ endorses. The many paths to god argument is one I see another rationalisation.
The fact that most religions are geographically clumped seems a powerful argument against any of them coming from a divine source.
LikeLike
God has implanted in the heart of every human being the awareness, the perception, of his existence. This perception, as faint as it may be, gives every human the opportunity to find God and to find salvation. Those who truly seek God will find him. But they must be receptive. They must open themselves to this perception of divinity; this inner voice; the voice that has told every human being since Creation that there is more to life than mere existence. If a person listens to this inner voice, this perception, this inner awareness, and seeks after truth, he or she will find God, the one true God of the Bible.
That is what the Bible says, so it is true, because the Bible is the Word of God.
Anyone who rejects God has stopped listening to the inner voice. Stop resisting. Submit to God first, THEN the truth will be revealed to you.
LikeLike